ML20212K580

Rev 3 to Element Rept 80503-SQN, Document Distribution Control, TVA Employee Concerns Special Program

ML20212K580
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	02/26/1987
From:	Collins G, Kang J, Stewart D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20212K537	List: ML20212K533 ML20212K580 ML20212K774
References
80503-SQN, 80503-SQN-R03, 80503-SQN-R3, NUDOCS 8703090355
Download: ML20212K580 (20)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: i. REPORT' TYPE SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN 9- -Element Report REVISION NUMBER: TITLE: .3 Document Distribution Control PAGE 1 0F 15 REASON FOR REVISION: To incorporate Corrective Action Plans to CATDs 80503-SQN-01 through -07. Revision indicators 'are in the right margin on each affected page. Note: Sequoyah Applicability Only PREPARATION PREPARED BY: G. A. COLLINS -A.OdLL a/so/e7 CA 3. n g SIGNATURE DnTE ^ ( REVIEWS PE \\1/J lt O Y / ' $1GNATliRE -DATI TAS: l27 l p) M,hewftSIGNATURE / 'TE CONCURRENCES O 1 2 -2+f CEG-H: M.c SRP ff 2 -2(p S/ SIGNATURE DATE SpATURE*f// DATE APPROVED BY: / /s ' 8[ N/A ECSP MAN 4CER I/ ATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR DATE POWER CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)

• SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.

C703090355 B70303

PDR ADOCK 05000327 P

PDR L -.

~ TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: Element Report 3 TITLE: PAGE 2 0F 15 Document Distribution Control 1.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUE 1.1 Introduction This report pertains to the Quality Assurance Category Evaluation Group (QACEG) investigation of an issue derived from seven employee concerns which were identified by the Quality Technology Corporation (QTC) during the Watts Bar Employee Concern Special Program. This issue was evaluated at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) because the concerns were considered to be either site specific or generically applicable to SQN as identified on Attachment A. 1.2 Description of Issue I These concerns are grouped together into this issue because of their ~ similarity; they each relate to the issue of Document / Drawing Control adequacy at SQN. The concerns relate to: maintenance of vendor drawings; document tracking; improper issuance of drawings / documents; the use of a master card file for control of drawings; and the correlation between drawing revisions listed in the Drawing Management j Systems (DMS) and the drawing revisions located at TVA on-site and 1, off-site Document Control Centers (DCC). i 1 2.0

SUMMARY

2.1 Summary'of Characterization of Issue j The basic issue derived from the seven concerns is Document / Drawing Control adequacy. The concerns identified specific instances where a the document / drawing control program, procedures and instructions and their' implementation were alleged to be inadequate. t, 2.2 Summary of Evaluation Process .iL The methodology used to evaluate the issue consisted of: a. Reviewing the following documents to determine the requirements and commitments applicable to this issue: Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, TVA's Topical Report, Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual I (NQAM), specifications, procedures, instructions, reports, and correspondence, b. Researching of Employee Concern Files including the Confidential Files for any additional information pertaining to this issue, t c. Reviewing and evaluating Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) reports I-85-472-NPS, I-85-460-NPS, I-83-13-NPS, R-85-07-NPS and I-86-129-SQN to determine their validity regarding i A

g TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: Element Report 3 TITLE: PAGE 3 0F 15 . Document Distribution Control document / drawing control adequacy. These reports were used as i the basis'for the Summary and Findings sections of this report. They are included in Section 6 of this report. as' attachments B thru F respectively. d. Holding discussions with. cognizant. personnel that manage or supervise tite document distribution control system to determine if applicable requirements and commitments are being implemented. Reviewed 212 as-designed drawings listed on the DMS' data base to e. compare the latest drawing revisions identified on the computer printout and aperture cards at on-site and off-site Drawing Control Centers. [ 2.3 Summary of Findings The concerns ~ of record regarding this issue are substantiated.' The following negative findings were identified pertaining to the issue of document / drawing control adequacy. j a. The SQN master index system is not a reliable drawing control system. b. There are no implementing procedures for drawing control at the off-site Drawing Control Center (DCC) as required by NQAM, Part I, Section 2.6, Paragraph 5.1. c. The revision of as-designed drawings identified on the DMS data-base did not reflect the latest drawing revisions at on-site and -off-site DCCs as required by NQAM, Part I, Section 2.6, Paragraph 5.1. g-d. QA Staff Surveillance Section performed an inplant survey and issued report IC-85-S-002 which identified deficiencies regarding the control of vendor drawings. A Corrective Action Report'(CAR) SQCAR-85-03-005 was initiated as a result of the deficiencies which established corrective action that revised the NQAM and implementing Administrative Instruction to define more restrictive controls on vendor drawings. Corrective action was not requested or performed for the actual deficiencies of vendor drawings identified in the survey. 1-e. Vendor manuals and drawings contained in Environmental Qualification (EQ) binders do not agree with plant controlled vendor manuals and information identified in the DMS. TVA's upper and lower tier procedures were inadequate to control vendor drawings.

a TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: Element Report-3 TITLE: PAGE 4 0F 15 Document Distribution Control f. On-site Drawing Control Center (DCC) personnel failed to follow established procedures regarding drawing distribution as required by implementing Office of Engineering Procedure (OEP) OEP-08. g. Deficiencies regarding microfilming, indexing and retrieval of the Quality Engineering Branch (QEB) and Office of Construction (OC) documentis have not been identified and documented on a CAR as required by NQAM,,Part I, Section 2.16, Paragraph 5.1. 2.4 Corrective Action Taken and the Results Achieved to Date A Corrective Action Report was initiated by Quality Assurance identifying deficiencies regarding Vendor Manuals and Drawings. y Certain problem areas still exist and are being tracked for completion by TVA's QA Staff. 3 QACEG discovered other discrepancies during the course of the investigation and documented them on CATDs 80507-SQN-01 through -07 (Attachments H through N). TVA has responded with an acceptable Corrective Action Plan. 3.0 EVALUATOR (S) G. A. Collins 4.0 EVALUATION PROCESS This section describes the general and specific methodology used in the evaluation of the issue dealing with document / drawing control adequacy. 4.1 General Methods of Evaluation The Employee Concern Files (including the Confidential File) were researched for additional information pertaining to this issue. The basic contents of the files were K-forms, various NSRS investigation reports identified in Section 4.2, " Specifics of Evaluation", and various memorandums pertaining to the employee concerns. Upper tier programs and lower tier implementing procedures were reviewed to determine requirements and specific responsibilities. Standards, instructions, audit and surveillance

reports, and correspondence were reviewed to determine the extent of the issue of Document / Drawing Control.

Discussed the employee concerns with 26 individuals involved in the Document / Drawing Control Program to determine if requirements and commitments have been implemented. Y

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS -REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: Element Report-3 - TITLE: -PAGE 5 OF 15-Document Distribution Control I- ~ 4.2 Specifics of Evaluation Reviewed - the. applicable requirements ; and commitments pertaining to Document / Drawing Control program: a. Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 dated January 20, 1975 l b. Topical Report, TVA-TR-1A revision 8 I c. Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM) dated December 23, 1985 d. Inter Divisional Quality Assurance Procedure (IDQAP) ID-QAP-6.1, l " Document Control", dated December 31, 1984' and June 18, 1986 e. ID-QAP-6.2, " Configuration Drawing Control", dated December 31, j 1985 and June 18, 1986. f. ID-QAP-17.1, " Transfer of QA Records", dated October 1, 1984 and June 18, 1986. g. ID-QAP-17.2, "QA Records for Design and Construction", dated October 1, 1984 and' June 18, 1986. h. Administrative Instruction (AI) - AI-25 Revisions 10 through 15, j " Drawing Control After Unit Licensing" i. AI-23, revision 21, " Vendor Manual Con:rol" j. AI-08, " Drawing and Reproduction", dated September 10, 1985 ji k. Office of Engineering Procedure (OEP) OEP-08, Design Output" 1. Nuclear Engineering Procedure (NEP) NEP-5.1, " Design Output", dated July 1, 1986 Reviewed and evaluated previous NSRS Reports because of their relationship to document / drawing control adequacy and to determine their adequacy regarding this issue. I-85-472-NPS, dated December 26, 1985, " Drawing Control Master Index System"; I-85-460-NPS, dated March 7, 1986, " Drawing Control at Off-Site Locations and DMS Accuracy"; I-86-185-SQN, dated March 5, 1986, "SQN Vendor Drawing Control"; I ( 180-SQN, dated March 4, 1986, "SQN Drawing Control"; I-83-13-NPS, dated June 17, 1983, " Investigation of Concerns Regarding Quality Engineering Branch (QEB) Records"; R-85-07-NPS, dated May 28, 1985, " Follow Up Review of Report I-83-13-NPS"; I-86-129-3QN, dated March 3, 1986, "Second Follow Up Review of QEB Records"; and documents and references identified in the reports.

A 4 . TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: -SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN. REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: -Element Report-3 TITLE: ~ PAGE 6 0F 15 Document Distribution Control Reviewed applicable Corrective Action Reports (CAR) SQ-CAR-85-03-005, and SQ-CAR-86-01-004; Significant Cordition Reports (SCR) GENIMS-8501, SQN ' SQP-8602 R0, and SQN ' SQP8604 R0; and QA Staff Survey Checklist . Number IC-85-S-002, - to determine if ' Corrective Actions - (C/A) were in-compliance

with program-requirements and in.plementing procedures /instruetions.

f Reviewed 212 as-designed, " drawings listed on the DMS data base to ' compare ~the. latest drawing revisions identified on the computer printout and aperture cards at on-site and - off-site Drawing Control Centers. 5.0 FINDINGS T 5.1 Finding on Issue - Distribution of controlled drawings and revisions are not in accordance with ' applicable upper-tier QA' program requirements. Several concerns were grouped together into one issue because they each relate to the issue of Document / Drawing Control adequacy at SQN. Discussion ,TVA's current system for drawing control is the Drawing Management System (DMS) established in June 1984, not the master card file system as alleged. TVA's QA program documents, upper and lower tier requirements such as NQAM, Part III, Section 1.1, " Document Control"; NQAM, Part V, Section 6.1, (ID-QAP 6.1), " Configuration Drawing Control (CCD)"; and Administrative Instruction AI-25, " Drawing Control After U' nit Licensing", do not allow the use of the master card file by Document Control Center (DCC) personnel for CCDs. The Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) conducted an investigation pertaining to the master card system for drawings at SQN and issued report I-85-472-NPS that identified findings with recommendations for corrective action. The SQN Site Director responded to the NSRS report stating that the recommendations could not be implemented at the present time. The NSRS Director issued a memorandum on February 28, 1986 regarding the corrective action response which stated the SQN response was rejected for conflicting and inconsistent drawing control requirements. In addition, statements contained in the response support the indication that distribution of controlled copies of drawings and revision controls at SQN are not being accomplished in accordance with applicabic upper-tier QA program requirements. Conclusion Based on the evaluation and investigation by the Quality Assurance Category Evaluation Group (QACEG) it was determined that the NSRS

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPICIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: Element Report 3 TITLE: PAGE 7 0F 15 Document Distribution Control report findings and recommendations were valid and are-still applicable. The NSRS Director's rejection of the SQN Site Director's responses for corrective actions have not been addressed. There are no implementing procedures for the 5.2 Finding on Issue operation of drawing control at TVA off-site Drawing Control Centers (DCC). Discussion The NSRS conducted an investigation pertaining to " Drawing Control at 'Offsita Locations and Drawing Management System Accuracy" and issued report. I-85-460-NPS with recommendations for corrective action. The QACEG ccicurs with the' NSRS report findings and recommendations;- ,[ however, inadequate drawing control requirements at off-site DCCs were not addressed. As ' a result of the NSRS report, the Configuration Control Task Force initiated a DMS Interim Program Plan (Attachment G) to identify responsibility for implementation and schedule completion of the DMS program plan. The concern was initiated in August 1985 but could not be evaluated in that time frame. An investigation was performed at SQN on as-designed drawings for System Nc. 67, " Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW)". This entailed identifying 212 of the latest drawing revisions listed on the DMS. The list was verified in mid September 1986, against the latest computer printout, dated August 15, 1986 and the latest drawing revisions identified on aperture cards located at SQN Drawing Control Center (DCC), Chattanooga DCC, and the Technical Information Center (TIC) in Knoxville. The computer printout is revised monthly. The following-discrepancies were identified: DMS identified drawing 17W600-4 Revision 3, Chattanoooga DCC latest aperture card is Revision 2 dated 6/7/78; DMS identified drawings 47W450-28 Revision 3, 47W845-4 Revision 25, 47W845-5 Revision 13, 47W845-6 Revision 2,

however, aperture cards were not available for drawings at Chattanooga DCC; DMS identifie'd drawings 47D601-55-23 Revision 1, and 45N706-1 Revision 22, where Chattanooga DCC and TIC in Knoxville has aperture cards with a later revision.

Site DCC has an aperture card with a later revision for drawing 47N706-1 Revision 22, but no card for drawing 47B601-55-23 Revision 1. The investigation of Chattanooga DCC and TIC in Knoxville revealed that no TVA lowcr-tier QA approved procedures or instructions were available. The Cnattanooga DCC had a Section Instruction Letter (SIL) -3, dated February 21, 1985, which states in part:

r y f-i- TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS' REPORT NUMBER: p-SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN- [ REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: . Element Report 3 ~~ TITLE: PAGE 8 0F 15 ' Document Distribution Control ? !~ ) "The DCC is designed as a self service facility that offers up to j' date documented information on as-designed, as-constructed and vendor drawings." Conclusion -Based on the investigation and evaluation by the QACEG it was s' determined that the NSRS.. report findings and recommendations still apply and. that additional ~ corrective actions are needed fcr findings {' identified on CATDs. (See Paragraph 5.6) i f' 5.3 Finding on Issue - Vendor drawings at SQN are not being maintained in an orderly system such that incorrect drawings may have been issued to j engineers for use in the field. 5 T Discussion A survey. was conducted by the ' QA Staff Surveillance Section during February 19 thru 25, and March 4 thru 8, 1985, on vendor drawing control. The survey was done to ' examine the control of vendor j drawings 'and to verify the effectiveness of the plants in implementing y applicable requirements. The survey results indicated that controls were not adequate to ensure "as-constructed" vendor drawings were used in'the performance of maintenance on Critical Structures, Systems, and i Components (CSSC) equipment. Revision levels of drawings contained in validated vendor manuals did not accurately reflect as-constructed drawing, revision levels. As a result, the subject vendor drawings did not depict the plants' as-constructed configuration. Drawings in validated vendor manuals are routinely used to perform maintenance on CS,SC rather than the as-constructed vendor drawings. As a result of the survey, CAR SQ CAR-85-03-005 was issued. The CAR was. completed and closed out on April 11, 1986 by revising the NQAM Part III, Section 1.1, and Administrative Instruction AI-25, Revision 13, to define more restrictive controls on use of vendor drawings. In discussion with the initator of the CAR, it was determined that no corrective actions had been performed or requested on the actual deficiencies identified in the survey. 9 SQ-CAR-86-01-004 was initiated on January 30, 1986 stating: " Contrary to the requirements conta!ned in AI-23, Revision 21, and NQAM Part V, Section 6.1, dated December 21, 1985, certain vendor manuals and drawings conta ined in SQN Environmental Qualification (EQ) binders do not natch with plant controlled vendor manuals and information ident;.fied in the DMS." The corrective action plan provided by the Pnviromental Qualification (EQ) Project Manager for SQ-CAR-86-01-004 states in part: 1 i i b

~ TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL-PROGRAM 80503-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: . Element' Report 3 TITLE: PAGE 9 0F 15 Document Distribution Control ~"A'new vendor manual control program is being developed that not only solves the problem at-hand but is also directed at providing-appropriate framework to resolve the issues raised in' the an Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Generic Letter 83-28 and this program will require a substantial commitment of resources through January 1,_1988. The NRC Generic Letter 83-28 requires that_ "for vendor interface, licensees and applicants shall establish, implement and maintain a continuing program to ensure that-vendor information for safety-related components is complete, current and controlled throughout the life of their plants, and appropriately referenced or incorporated ' in plant instructions and procedures." NSRS Report I-86-185-SQN, "SQN Vendor Drawing Control", was issued on .I-March 5, 1986. The report addressed five employee concerns that-identified deficiencies with the vendor drawing control program within the Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE). Corrective actions were addressed throughout the report with no tracking document identified for -the deficiencies such as CARS /DRs. The NSRS recommendations stated: " Corrective action concerning SQN vendor drawing controls is in progress through performance of a vendor drawing audit which began January / February 1986 and controlled replacement of drawings where needed." As part of the QACEG investigation a discussion was held with the DNE Office Supervisor, and the document control clerk who is in process of doing an internal accountability audit on vendor drawings to verify compliance with the computer printout and the DMS. They stated that forty percent of vendor drawings are in compliance; however, due to other priority tasks, the ' audit war, suspended with no scheduled completion date. Conclusion Based on the QACEG evaluation and investigation of the identified NSRS report, QA Survey and CARS, it was determined that vendor drawings and manuals at SQN were not adequately maintained. Upper and lower tier inadequate to control vendor drawings to preclude procedures were issuance of duplicate drawings and drawings with conflicting information. 5.4 Finding on Issue - On-site Drawing Control Center personnel's f ailure to follow established procedures regarding drawing distribution. Discussion Regarding drawings being improperly issued, Significant Condition Report (SCR) SQN SQP8602, Revision 0 was initiated. The SCR identified design drawings on Engineering Change Notice (ECN), ECN

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN e! REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: Element Report 3 TITLE: PACE 10 0F 15 Document Distribution Control L6027, that were issued on August 6, 1985, without the Project Manager's release for distribution as required by Office of Engineering Procedure (OEP), OEP-08. NSRS Report I-86-180-SQN, "SQN [ Drawing Control" was issued addressing the nonconforming conditions of these design drawings. A review of the affected drawings by the QACEG revealed that the drawings were redistributed and initialed by the Project Manager. The SCR stated the root cause of improperly issued drawings was due to new p,ersonnel in almost all clerical positions. ~ Conclusion j Based on the evaluation and investigation by the QACEG it was determined that the NSRS report substantiating the concern is valid. Additionally, the basic problem appears to be the failure of personnel to follow established procedures. Corrective actions have been [ initiated by SQN to preclude this from happening in the future. 5.5 Finding on Issue - Inadequate system of tracking documents. Discussion In regard to TVA's system of tracking documents, the QACEG identified three (3) NSRS Investigations performed at SQN regarding " Quality { Engineering Branch (QEB) Records." The investigations originated on March 16, 1983 and NSRS report 1 13-NPS 'was issued on June 17, 1983, addressing extensive deficiencies involving the retrieval of information from vendor QA records at SQN. The document tracking system was considered by NSRS to be inadequate due to the poor organization, lack of completeness, low level of indexing and lack of editing. A follow up review was performed by the NSRS and report R-85-07-NPS was issued on May 28, 1985. It revealed that corrective actions resulting from the original investigation had not been completely closed. For example, QEB records were not f adequately indexed and Records Retrieval Indexing (RRI) did not ~ preclude the need to rely on individuals' memories to locate records. The report recommended that Power and Engineering (Nuc1 car) appoint an upper level manager enpowered with the responsibility, authority and organizational freedom to assure that records associated with the procurement and installation of QEB source inspected equipment and materials are assembled, verified for completeness, indexed and stored for retreivability to include all past and future QEB records at SQN. i i A second follow up review was performed by the NSRS and report I l 129-SQN was issued on March 3, 1986. The report revealed that corrective accions remained open; such as, indexing of records, microfilming of newly discovered office of Construction records, 1 manual indices, and rework of the RRI System at SQN by Nuclear Power. I 4 A

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: Element Report 3 -TITLE: PAGE 11 OF 15 Document Distribution Control A status report was issued by the supervisor of Information Systems dated Septemb2r 30, 1986 regarding SQN construction records which states in pert: "hcause of problems associated with the retrieval of Sequoyah construction records, a uniform, computer-based construction records system for all plant systems and components is being established and will provide all 1cvels of plant supervision and engineering personnel with immediate access to construction information. This program will provide a satisfactory method of tracking an item or activity in a systematic manner. Considering the volume of records and people we now have, it will take until December 31, 1987 to mark the computer printouts and another year to complete the data entry and verification into the computer." Conclusion Based on the evaluation and investigation by the QACEG, it was determined that the NSRS reports findings are valid and open items still exist such as: QEB identification, location, verification of completeness and microfilming of QA records; RRI of QEB and Construction records; and, as noted in the conclusion of Section 5.3, the vendor drawings and manuals were not adequately maintained. 5.6 Corrective A,ction A CAR (SQCAR 86-01-004), initiated by Quality Assurance (QA) on January 30, 1986, identified deficiencies regarding vendor manuals and drawings contained in SQN Environmental Qualification binders. Specific site corrective action responsibilities have been defined for their resolution. TVA is also providing an appropriate framework to 3 resolve issues raised in NRC Generic Letter 83-28 with a commitment date of January 1, 1988. Certain problem areas still exist and are being tracked for completion by TVA's QA Staff. The investigation and evaluation revealed that the concerns identified on Attachment A are substantiated and could potentially impact safety. As a result of the conditions identified in Section 5.1 thru 5.5, the QACEG issued the following Corrective Action Tracking Documents (CATDs) and acceptable Corrective Action Plans (as described below) have been received from the SQN Site Director. QACEG verification of all corrective measures will be completed at the corrective action completion dates provided in each respective response. CATD No. 80503-SQN-01 (Attachment H) was issued regarding the NS RS Director's rejection of the SQN Site Director's responses to NSRS Report No. I-85-472-NPS.

j - TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: Element Report 3 TITLE: PAGE 12 OF 15 Document Distribution Control

Response

NSES RECOMMENDATION

1. I-85-472-NPS Configuration Drawing Control Requirements A. ~DMS be utilized exclusively by site Document Control Organizations for Configuration Control drawing information reYrieval and B.

That the master index be placed under the QA program as a back up system, if desired, or until total conversion to the DMS occurs. [

2. I-85-472-NPS-02, SQN, Utilization of DMS A.

SQN DCC has not implemented the DMS as the single CC drawing. management system. NSRS recommends that SQN require exclusive utilization of DMS for CC drawing information retrieval. This action should establish the DMS as the single CC drawing management sys ten. and discontinue DCC utilization of the master index. ACTION TO: I-85-472-NPS-01 and I-85-472-NPS-02 Due to the re-organization, Division of Engineering has tassumed the responsibilities for the As-Constructed drawings. 3 As these drawings are transferred to DNE, based upon their prioritized list, the master index card will be removed as a back up system and the DMS used exclusively. Completion dated: June 1, 1987

3. I-85-472-NPS-03, Need to Perform Audit / Survey Master Index System.

A. Because SQN DCC is using the non-QA approved Master Card Index system on occasion as its official drawing control system for distribution and construction status information, DQA is requested to audit / survey the adequacy of this area in the near future and on a periodic basis until total conversion to DMS occurs. ACTION Quality Assurance performed a survey of Drawing Control and the Master Card System on July 25, 1987 and documented the results in Survey Report ic-86-S-003. The results of the survey indicated the following:

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: Element Report 3' TITLE: PAGE 14 0F 15 Document Distribution Control process is accurate. The original DMS is currently being . reviewed in conjunction with the Engineering and Computer Methods Branch to ensure that the input and output data is verified to 3 qualify the system for Usage level 2, the system is used to generate or act upon Nuclear Design Output and the output must be verified. CATD Nos. 80503-SQN-04 and 80503-SQN-05 (Attachments K and L) were issued to document the lack of corrective action for. deficiencies identified in the QA Inplant Survey Checklist No. IC-85-S-002 dated 3/14/85 and NSRS Report No. I-86-185-SQN.

Response

With the issuance of AI-25, Part'I, Revision 17 and the issuance of SQEP 49, Revision 0, " Review and Approval of Vendor Drawings," adequate controls will be in place to direct the verification and use of vendor drawings. In addition, proposed AI-23, Revision 24 and SQEP 39 Revision) " Review of Vendor Manuals" will also address the use of vendor drawings contained in vendor manuals. As a part of the corrective action of Corrective Action Report 3 (CAR) SQ-CAR-85-03-005, no commitment was made to back-check all drawings contained in our present vendor manuals. However, the issuance of the above Als, procedures provide adequate guidelines and steps to have vendor drawings placed in the DMS and as-constructed program for use in the plant. In addition, the 10 drawings identified in the deficiency 1C S-002 are in the TVA drawing system and are statused accordingly. In addition, all drawings contained within vendor manuals are for information only and more 'if that drawing must be verified with site document control before work can commence. Sequoyah Engineering Project will either issue a new procedure of revise existing Administrative Instruction (AI-08) to clearly define and establish controls of Sequoyah Engineering Project SQEP "as-designed" and "as-constructed" drawing originals. This will be done by May 15, 1987. In addition, to address the concern of the illegibility or drawings within the Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE), attached is a copy of SCRGENER18602 which addresses this item. Finally, to address the control and use of records and drawings within DNE on a continuing basis, the program group being established by ERIS (see CATD No. 80503-SNQ-02, Part 1) will survey and audit and make recommendations to ensuce compliance with programs and procedures.

TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN. REPORT TYPE . REVISION NUMBER: Element Report 3 TITLE: PAGE 13 0F 15 Document Distribution Control

1. A total verification of all drawings in the Drawing Management System is being accomplished as individual drawings or drawing systems are being transferred from Drawing Control Center to Design Nuclear Engineering. The transfer and verification of 3

DMS drawings from DCC to DNE is expected to be completed by November 3,1986.

2. Drawing Control cards are in agreement with drawings on file and the DMS for the sample of Control Room drawings selected in this surveillance.

CATD Nos. 80503-SQN-02 and 80503-SQN-03. (Attachments I and ' J) were ( issued for SQN to identify implementing QA procedures and instructions at off-site DCCs and to correct identified deficiencies of drawing revisions and missing aperture cards at on-site and off-site DCCs. Response Knoxville - Part I A similar problem exists in each DNE engineering project. This situation has been identified and proposed corrective-action documented in the preliminary DNE Project Records Management and Document Control Report. Some activity related to 80503-SQN-02 and recommended in the report, has already begun, and DNE expects phased implementation of'the RM/DC Program over the next several years with in: mediate 3 attention to the most critical areas. Response Chattanooga - Part II Document Control and Records Management Directives and Standards will be issued according to the policies established by the i Nuclear Procedure System when that system is in place. Until the I Nuclear Procedure System is available, (DCRM) Directives and Standards will be issued using the PMP process. Issuance of required Directives and Standards is expe:ted to be completed in three to six months. ^L

Response

The actual deficiencies identified and shown on CATD No. 80503-SQN-03, Part 6, items 1, 2, and 3, have been corrected and coordinated with the TIC Center in Knoxville, Site Document Control and with the Chattanooga DCC. The ERIS is developing the Drawing Change Authorization (DCA) Pilot which will be a QA qualified system and ensure the information entered related to drawings and the change control 4

n TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: SPECIAL PROGRAM 80503-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER: Element Report 3 TITLE: PAGE 15 OF 15 Document Distribution Control CATD No. 80503-SQN-06 was issued with Revision 0 of this Element but has been voided because of corrective actions initiated by SQN to pre:lude recurrence. CATD No. 80503-SQN-07 ( Attachment M) was issued to document the lack of tracking documents such as a CAR for identified deficiencies noted in NSRS Report No. 1-83-13-NPS, R-85-07-NPS and I-86-129-SQN. In a follow-up investigation, NSRS report R-85-07-NPS, it was found that although a records handling system had been implemented, QEB had no schedule for processing the backlog of SQN records. QEB then coordinated with the responsible manageres at SQN an acceptable completion date (June 30, 1986) for processing the SQN QEB records. The nt:xt follow-up .I investigation, NSRS report I-86-129-SQN, found that ... work is steadily progressing toward the resolution of the remaining open items identified by NSRS." Subsequently, processing of the QEB records for SQN was completed on June 30, 1986. Corrective action concerning the handling and processing of the site construction records will be tracked by the initiation of Discrepancy Report (DR) SQ-DR--87-060R. For additional corrective action, see Response to CATD 80503-SQN-02, Part 1. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS ** A. List of Employee Concerns Information for Element 80503 dated October 3, 1986 B. NSRS Investigation Report No. I-85-472-NPS C. NSRS. Investigation Report No. 1-85-460-NPS D.

• NSRS Investigation Report No. I-83-13-NPS E.

NSRS Investigation Report No. R-85-07-NPS F. NSRS Investigation Report No. I-86-129-SQN G. Memorandum regarding " Sponsorship of the Drawing Management System and Program Plan". H. Corrective Action Tracking Document 80503-SQN-01 I. Corrective Action Tracking Document 80503-SQN-02 J. Corrective Action Tracking Document 80503-SQN-03 K. Corrective Action Tracking Document 80503-SQN-04 L. Corrective Action Tracking Document 80503-SQN-05 M. Corrective Action Tracking Document 80503-SQN-07 N. Corrective Action Tracking Document 80503-SQN-06 -- Voided

• • NOTE: Best available copies.

~. ~~ ~~-

• ~

Standard Practice Page 8 SQA166 Revision 8

• i Page 1 of 2 Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern Investigation Tracking Checklist ECTG Report /CATD Ntaber 8 05~. 0) S'ON/ CAT *E - 20T03-50A1- 0/-02,07 c' loc o Lead Organization. Responsible for Correc'tive Action Plan ENG Initiation Date IJ P4,,

CORRECTIVE ACTICif PLAN (CAP) f

1. Does this report required corrective action?

Yes No (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification) j-a,%(%.e/J ( 2. Identify any similar item / instances and corrective action taken. A/0siE

3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings?

Yes A No

4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to cuality (CAQ) as defined by AI-12 or NEP 9.17 YES No x

5. IP a CAQ condition exists, what CAQ doctment was initiated?

t

6. Which site section/ organization is responsible for corrective action?

7. Is corrective action required for restart?

Yes No' E (This determination is to be made using Attachment C of SQA166.)

8. P2 one number for restart corrective action? Zone

9. Estimate completion date for correction action.

Completed By MAI[ Date hb .2.o, (9 8 7 + Approved By W,k /J2irg/g/6/ Date

Mh 2a I /9h'1 ECTG Concurrence ///W A h Date 5,. e

.n ' / F r J d 6 0206S/mit l

s. o,.

1 eu r. e. f 9 Standard Practice Page 9 SQA166 Revision 8 Page 2 of 2 CAF CE,OSURE

10. Was your corrective action initiated and completed in accordanc e with step 17

11. If step 10 is no, describe the corrective action taken Yes _ No

13. Is the corrective action documentation clossd712. Is Yes No

14. What documents were used to implement the corrective actio ?

Yes _ No _ Completed By: n Verified Sy: Date f ECTG Closure: Dats _ Date _ (Step No.) ( Description I ( ~ f,. b 0206S/m1t

e-%k u ) ATTACHMENT A LIST OF EMPLOYEE CONCERNS INFORMATION FOR ELEMENT 80503 e + 6 I ( f i t e s k I A i t \\

mw _. s w......,,.., . j g, 5 :.g; CEFECENCE - ECPS12tJ-ECPSIZIC l FREGuENCY - REQUEST TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTt!DRITY OFFICE OF NUCLEAR P0ilER PAGE = I ONP - 1555 - RHM .~ EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS) RUN TIME - LIST OF EMPLOYEE CONCERN INFORMATION RUN DATE CATEGORYe GA QA/QC PROGRAMS SURCATEGORTs-80505 DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTIDH CONTROL 5 GENERIC N APPL QTC/NSRS P KEYHORD A CONCERN SUB R PLT BB$H INVESTIGATION 5 CONCERN KEYHORD B NUMBER CAT CAT D LOC FLQB REPORT R DESCRIPTION KEYHORD C...' . es -KEYHORD 1 w XX -5 5-962-331

• QA B0503 N NPS HNNY I-B5-460-NPS MS BROHN'S FERRY, BELLEFONTE, SEQUDYAN DOCUMENT STATU:

TSG129 K-FORM ^ - 4/: CI HAS BEEN Ul10FFICIALLY INFORMED T 'DOCUHENT CON'e .S IIAT Tite LATEST DRAHINGS ON ALL TVA N OPERATIONS u --2 UCLEAR PDHER PL ANT SITES ARE NOT, IN

GENERAL, Tile MAJORITY OF INSTANCES, THE LATE e

ST DRAHINGS AT OFFSITE TVA ADMINISTR ATIVE OFFICES / DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING r, A COMPUTER PRINT-0UT THAT DOES NOT REFLECT THE CURRENT DRAHING REVISION THIS CAN, AND DOES, CAUSE DESIGN, NODIFICATION, AND/OR REPAIR PROBLEM 4, S. NUCLEAR PDHER. CI HAS NO MORE I ~ NFORMATION. f XX 062-002-QA B0505 N NPS.NNNN I-BS-472-NPS NS BRONN'S FERRY BELLEFONTE: THE CURRE-DOCUMENT STATUS ~< T50124 K-FakM E ~ . HT TVA SYSTEM OF USING A MASTER CARD DOCUMENT CON 1 FILE OF DRAHINGS (THIS SYSTEM IN PL OPERATIONS M ACE AT SEQUOYAH) IS INDEQUATE AND SH GENERAL 3 00LD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED (IF NOT ALRE 'O ' A DY ) AT HATTS BAR, BROHN'S FERRY, AN i 4 D BELLEFONTE. THIS SYSTEM ALLOHS Fu l N OSS OF REFERENCE CARDS IF A DRAHER I-R INSTANT DISARRAY, DISTRUCTION OR L -4 5 DROPPED OR THE SYSTEM SABOTAGED. l Tile DATA FROM THE CARDS SHOULD BE IN PUT 10 THE COMPUTER AND AVAILABLE TO ALL' APPLICABLE OFFICES HITHIN TVA. NUCLEAR P0HER CONCERN. CI HAS 7 CONCERNS FOR CATEGORY QA SUBCATEGORY 80503 ~ '~' 9 e m w Er.", _t -. & - *- W

D C E FER E'ilCE - ECPSI20J-ECPSI21C TEHHESSEE VAL LEY AUTit0RITY PAGE FCEQUEHCY - REQUEST OFFICE CF lluCL EAR P0HER Rutl TIME - n DNP - ISSS - RHM EMPLOYEE C0ilCER!! PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS) U RUll DATE - LIST OF Et1PLOYEE CONCERll IllFORMATIott CATEGGRY: QA QA/QC PROGRAMS SUBCATEGORY 80503 DOCUMENT DISTRIbuTIcti CONTR'L O S GENERIC KEYHORD A H APPL QTC/flSRS P KEYHORD B CONCERH SUB R PLT BB5H I taVEST IGATI0tt S CONCERtl HUMBER CAT CAT D LOC FLQB REPORT R DE',CRIP T I oll - KEYi10RD C KEYl10RD RII-E6-A-0014.' QA 20503 H SQll N 11 il !! !!S All ALL EGER IllDICATED C0!1CERN THAT TH c K-FokM E VEllDOR DRAHI"GS AT SEQUDYAH HAD HO 8 /. T BEEli MAIllTAlllED IN All ORDERLY SYST g *n c-EH SUCit THAT IllCORRECT DRAll! HGS 11AY ff ~~ HAVE BEEli ISSUED TO EllGINEERS FOR US E Iti Tile FIEL D. FOR CLOSURE OF TilIS c. ~. ISSUE, TVA SHOULD DETERMIllE HilETilER g OR HOT INCORRECT VENDOR DRAllINGS HER E USED RESULTING INIMPROPER IllSTALLA TI0tl AND OPERATIDH OF EQUIPMElli AtID 3 DOCUt1ENT TttE RESULTS OF THE FIllDINGS ALSD, TVA S!!OULD REVIEH THE VEllDO R LRAllING PROGRAH AllD DETERMIllE Tite CORRECTHESS OF TiiE DRAslINGS AND G SGH-86-040-001'. QA 20505 H SQ!! H !! N H HS DURING Tile EXIT INTERVIEW THE CI EXP v4 K-FORM - RESSED HIS CollCERN HIIH Tile DRAHIllG s 1 CONIROL PROGRAM. THE CI GAVE HIS CO p;3 HCERil To 11I5 SUPERVISOR AFID DID HOT - 111 511 To RESTATE IT OR.TO ilAVE IT IHV ESTIGATED. i U SGM-26-005-001.' QA 20503 H SQll ~ f 34 150255 NHHH I-86-130-SQH SS SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN IMPROPE 110HC0!!FORMAtlCI l RLY ISSUED. (ilAMES/ DETAILS KHollN TO DOCUMENT COI QIC, llITHitELD TO MAIllTAIll C0!3FIDEtlT ENGIllEERIt IALITY.) 110 FURTilER INFORMATION MAY REPORTS f, BE RELEASED. HUCLEAR Poller CollCERN ~ . CI IIAS Ho FURTHER IllFORMATIDH llo FOLLoll-UP REQUIRED. XX 053-H04 - QA 80503 N SQN HHHH !!S tlRC IDEllTIFI'ED THE FOL L 0llING CD:lCERil K-FORM TE SYSTEM OF TRACKIliG DOCUMEllTS." FROM REVIEH OF QTC FILE. "IllADEQUA 3 IN 105-QOI QA 20505 H HBN 11 18 !! II I-85-460-!!PS tlS CI IIAS BEEH UNOFFICI ALLY INFORt1ED Til DOCUMENT STATUS T50129 K-FORM AT Tite L ATEST DRAHIllGS ON ALL TVA tlU DOCUttEllT Cotti CL EAR Poller PL ANT SITES ARE fl0T, IN CONSTRUCTIL 0 THE MAJORITY OF INSTAtlCES, THE LATES GEllERAL 1 DRAllINGS AT OFFSIIE TVA ADMINISTRA IIVE OFFICES /DEPARTilENTS, INCLUDING l A COMPUTER PRINT-0UT THAT DOES NOT R 1 EFL ECT 11tE CURREllT DRAllING REVISIDH. 11115 CAtl, AND DOES, CAUSE DESIGN, MODIFICATI0H, AND/OR REPAIR PROBLEMS i HUCLEAR P0HER, CI HAS HD MORE Ill 3.I 1 fokMATIDH. l I l 3,* I u

D ) O O ATTACHMENT E 9 NSRS INVESTICATION REPORT NO. I-85-472-NPS Se t + 0 a 6 e a e S 9 Af % f S l -- aV &f -t j fI f?f

jiik?dO!l! 3.' i.'..

7. '

a.3,u 4...... 1;.. '.m. ' - g el?.q!;pI I' f iI.e. !l.f J?:.. ATTACHMENT B Page 1 of 8 e. e' 1:;l., ;.,),'.g y :...,,.t'..'. i t' J 's. I, ATTACHMENT B i I .' t. t

J.l$.i e! *!i.. *.

?.* ~ esi. l.. ..a .'1... Cf TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [ 's. ). ' 8 ;M.. -. - i p *.:,!! NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW TAFF

• J -

. h. *., C ' ~..' t .: i e e ' l'.',l A *. i f,; ' ..I. NSRS INVESTIGATION REPORT No. I-85-472-NPS .i..-

4. '

" ; q W' *. j EMPLOYEE CONCERN NOS: IN-86-108-002 (WBN) ' 'I e i!'.'... I s' IX-85-062-002 (BFN) .I'08 II-85-062-002 (BLN) .v. . ?.. G. b f

i. 'h } '.... ;..

t t

5 - ([

SUBJECT:

DRAWING CONTROL MASTER INDEI SYSTEM t.- e .i. '..*~3,l. .: ? .b* t

t

-- s .. t: t *1 a .. lid. DATES OF '. [,'. Q ) k*J INVESIIGATION: OCTOBER 2-30, 1985 t ,,..,, l f;... - i a s e .'E5 ',J U, '! p') f q' y l 'I.. I.; *'i :;M;p;C t

tEAo 7

• f.bl'c[h)'.INVESTICATOR:

WC e

• ', t f -] l.,

W. R.,SIMONDS DATE .O.;y.,Q3 4,. t' * *' i' ' 1: g. t E bI . b,a '.'. N ',. INVESTIGATOR:. I R. E. HOCLUEE. 8' pATE

1.. u.e. :.,'..-

a i t o. : :.c. :e.,... l' i. ..!.f',E:.. 8/- .E aw /24/# REvIEWEo Br: ...s?.:.:.T...,;... cATE R. c. SAuER .i,.. . !.;.o.ljv.. ; g.* * -

• !. t. ' :

.j .,.., u i... '. ;i'.II,Uf.., 2 M-A-- f 5I M t APPROVED DY: , i.* l'"".~3:..s[l,%ET** ~ ' ' M' A, h ISON 'D.TE/ ~* , t gk.. s' 8e e s..';l* . ;,. ~ ... " r 4 :. (. s.1. = ,s: e s ~. : 9,..,$n, '\\ % : ..: :r.t.e t. '.yiT(.'1.. ..ls. - ! . {,

• • t

, '. e/.

1 f.I. +

• 4

. ! *t,- a

• t
• t.'. ',

I; e.. p.,

h ', h t 'd

• 4 Y

.,.I S: . " :i : ~

q pt,y I 8 ),..f, l!.I*'. I" '

ATTACHMENT B Page 2 of 8 (j((#,f h.

• i

-I.I[BACKCROUND 2 .S., . ', ;.. e i $i I.k.ANuclearSafetyReviewStaff(NSRS)investigationwasconductedto

1. !! 'l j !"*. '

$ [:I[h['I }h detemine' the validity of two expressed employee 15..!- ,.J'lfh8'ifQualityTechnologyCompany(QTC)/EmployeeResponseTeam(ERT .M-The concerns of record, as sununarized on the Employee Concern Assignment ' ; ;.; 'h 4 *y l. Request Foms from QTC and identified as II-85-062-002 and IN-86--

if '{'k

.; 108-002, stated i,,. ,( L t

• l. t. j, ).. l,.

1 Concem: The current TVA system of using a master, card

f.g;. ' j,t r ; ". (b

. file of drawings (this system in place at Sequoyah) is j + i F* l '. - j! '

• inadequate and should not be implemented (if not already) f hi.

5 at Watts Bar, Browns Ferry, and Bellef onte." This system ",' j;h,*i j f *;' s allows f or instant disarray, distmetion, or loss of ref- '-y.! "fIf l - ' erence cards if a drawer.is dropped or the system sabo-taged. The data from the cards should be* input to the I computer and available to all applicable offices within TVA. !.p l$. f;g,.' ., ' g / dN,'.i1 Trom this stated concern NSRS made the f,ollowing assumptions: .sg f i e

• Reference 1 states that the Drawing Control Center'(DOC) was estab-7' 'I -

.,, N' j ;,y j liched at each nuclear plant site for handling configuration control drawings. Configuration control (CC) is defined as the system , f. -) jl.. whereby drawings are as-constructed prior to transfer and up,n ecm-o J f.,li;[. *, 'p.,,. pletion of each workplan. The only drawings not under CC are those 4.6,h)i. 'b ',r.4.,not used to build the plant or to verify equipment configuration. t

• • i""

Therefore,,it is assumed by the investigator that " drawings" as used

• ' k'.5l.- ' *i in the above concern means "CC drawings."

s

• ..!'hh'A e., A master index card file system (master index) was gennrally i, f.. t,,j i '

accepted f or uso prior to 19E3 within UUC PR to maintain as-con- , Q: . J... structed status and distribution information for CC drawings on file 0

1. l '.(f.'sh,. :.,i in the DpC. However, references 1. 2, 7, and 14 indicate that the Drawing

• Management System (DMS) has replaced the master index, in

. ] j

.

addition to other systems, and is currently intended to be the ,Il, ' '..;/.DS.l,t-singleCpdrawingmanagementsystemfor'theOfficeofPowerand Engineering (P&E) (Nuclear). Therefore, it is assumed by the i, *. /.%,N S 8 0 /.* *'tir '. ;.'. 4 '. investigato'r that the above concern inadvertently refers to the

, 5

-(,i.[J. master index as "the curr nt TVA system...." ~ f.: m.y' II. ~ .s g. ;l..,o-i , SCOPE.r .1*"-

k. The scope of the investigation is' defined by the concerns of record

.,$y I ,l t; to be two specific issues requiring investigation as follows: .g s 1.,. The master index used by the sequoyah (SQU) DCC for CC drawings , M. .J.V d.t : r is inadequate and should not be impicmented at TVA's other e

.W. %:,.[:j.(

'P nuclear plants. i

• • *jf s.

Information contained in the SQN master index should be estab-

a. Q.j' l:.

2. I., i.*f',9' ' . liched as a computeri::ed data base which is accessible to all ., :q.: applicable TVA offices. ...x .. t... - ..~..a i;:M@h.. in 8' 2 0067T

.. j g; ~';fs.-

11-

% *3 .;0 ~ s . *i.,, e,s , ~. [*s 1 lB. NSRS reviewed corresponde kWknkify comitmenS"Ghd iRfdh. find- .1 $e? !N,Nl'/ s ings applicable to the drawing control program f or TVA's nuclear M .') N,. ' ', power plants. Quality assurance program procedures and plant 23.!'i II[. ' instructions were also reviewed to identify programmatic controls. h'i,[i.y'.;.4,i'. Interviews were conducted with nine DCC employees and CC Ta Ife.... j. j{f members to obtain details of current CC drawing control practices h!, r ': !l .d* and requirements. !pl lt* 'III.'

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS N..;:'.t. Requirements and Commitments A. 3 7 1. NUC PR NQAM, Part III, Section 1.1, dated March 21, 19 85, D o cu- , h'gOr ment Control." )- . : ia.', 6 a. "l.. ' l,. NUC PR NQAM, Part V, Section'6.1 (ID-QAP-6.1), dated .'jj",. h. 2. .4h;*}:'i'.s.Q,- December 31, 1984, " Configuration Drawing Control." s ',,.x Hemorandum f rom H. J. Green to A. W. Crevasse, " Joint Quality . U' 3. I i' Kf'J :. ~. f? . Assurance Audit Report No. JAB 100-06 (A24 820128 001)," dated March 8, 1982 (L16 820305 876).. commits TVA to develop the Di'. 6[l.>l. in accordance with the CC Task Force recomendation;s, (ref.14). Hemorandum from J. A. Coffey to Hanual Holders, "BFN Regulatory

• ' qJ

.i; 4. l. . !.6.4 ;4 ) Performance improvement Plan (RFIP) Oversight Group Meeting '.[> !. W. , Minutes No. 84-12," dated July 19, 1984 (L24 840719 800). .N..i : c, p3 Memorandum from J. A. Coffer to R. J. Hullin, "BFN Deviation ! ; i.M.,..' /. 5. j 7!,@.( II.I ' - JAB 100-06-A05 As-Constructed Drawings," dated February 2, 1985 i g- '. [,. (R25 850212 952), provides status and updated progress in imple-g;, '..,..: menting CC Task Force reco=endations. .$p.,;,

6.. TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A, Revision 8. Table 17D-3 co=.its

' dl,':f(?,b, l i TVA 4.o US URC Regulatory Guide 1.33, (Revision 2), dated

. $ d.'.$. l..!, YDdW l ' :

• tions)." which endorses use of ANSI N18.7-1976.

February 1978, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Opera- -1 1 . Y i; fl;.,j f..." i k ',. .7.' ANSI N18.7-1976, " Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance 4,. J .for the Operationni Phaso of Nuc1 car Power Plants." i.. r.* T8l.h... ? j d {b.!.. - I: ') .I: ,5 ;

j. :,1,1f* ?,,.)lf*;;I%...it..B.

Findings I 1.- ]; p... :I " t.8]5 )l-). l b;.. f' ' 1. SQN Haster.Index e.:...h....f .The master index was impicmented through reference 19 for CClp as

• E'l '"'j;T'!. !:...

't ' a. .',; ',; Mg,p!H(f. ' t,. drawings on July 11, 1979. It contains an index card for cach CC drawing on file'in the DCC. The cards are intended , i l W R I ;!

• E. to contain the as-constructed status and distribution infor-

?. : ',' I:}.D ;! ' Y ' if [,';. j'.d ; T mation applicable to the corresponding drawings. SQN DCC .'. r@:M.] E,;

l personnel stated that they continue to maintain the master index in accordance with reference 19 and that they F

. i', T:h M i l..t.:"

. ppy i. 4:.'y.o,.; ;- g *. ,41.. - ? ~* :l 1'!. 7' ,i* M.'?'y M:/ d .:'.y.t;;x,:. :: : i ' ; J ::: f;ii.!:'. t!! - 3 0067T 8.. ?."' t.3,l: ? "' ' f.,,j 1.,. O-

>m / g, 'j / ? 7 .th. u. .'.e / ,/ 5.'- l.. i r ,r ,y m

• [ I [; [;; 1yp! '*p%!y,i I

,, ATTACDtENT 3., y e 4 og 3 'S rely upon the 'Andet skrds as ta'sout+e of inYormation to .s j. ,q,. identify CC drawing revision leve',, ar-constructed status,, 8 y l;g I.. p'. ,'t 'M.. ant distribution. ) /' ofi(q'jij h. * ;J ' ~ j As a result of SQN DCC yersonnel interviews, it, was deter-mined that access to the master,index is not controllef. ner( s (,P.,;. j;}' ' U b. P.j,['. F';;'.: r g;,jj.,'. - ( is it periodically audited t( verif y the integrity of the), j i* information en the cards. M e e ' s, 8 + e References 1 and 2 do not identify the master,index av Sn + I- 'c. [';). - apprcved CC draving contrc,2< system. .d. i !pf> i' 2. Drawing hanegemtat System (D*t:) y o References 1,A,'and [ collectively. identify the CMS as the 1, f M'f n. sing',e syste.m to be used within P&E (Huclear) to stora, g ' ' ' '.'i f ','8Y,:'.:.!..t' update, and rStrieve construction statun and other infoma-

:.'", 4;!'

<h tion for TVA and vendor deswings. The DMS data base is a 1 8,!N,;i/jl.;i$. controlled doc' ament which is periodically audited and is flli,I3/'.[i;'j.L t' protected by 9ecurity,'festures. s lilie:t,III' '} :. Reference 23 states that the DHt replaces several systemte Ut l t hh' 0,.. g h., '.. ' b. that previously contained drawing intornation which were not s <d? ' 4' ' generally accentible to all TVA organitations needinp the [ ' h Ik,.b:..,. : et b !. :.'d. dl C {. 8.!, ll ;l y? ',: ll.- inf ormatien. 'js-constructed status, revision level,,eW ' .;.J distribution Latorr#.:Lon can ba retrieved by any r.utbr& sed ' t .H .b user through online access to TVA's mainframe cord utsk.' 4 f..; },.. l' -{k.;.*;..;.,,I ' - f..,' DM f .L, }l, p. Browns Furry converted its CC drawing bontrol system to the ...a; n.' 18.: ! '."..t,Jf '. ) ; ' ,c. DMS offective December 21, 1983. FN.00C personnel update

%.c 4

,, h ' !., dl ;,, ? ). the DMS f or Bru CC drawings in acLordM.:e with sppor-tier requirements and utilize the ::M3 exc1(sitkly to 1btain d.is-,,,, A. /- ......i.M 9 ll,'. .; :). i tribution'and M nstruction status information. ,4 .P..L,i'i[ b *** 'l i. ld. 208 has place d all of 16.s, "O E9uwing informablen onto the ' l, C Il ,.~. T : M..n t3 !; ' DMS but has not iully* di'/p:ed its vs.g cf the liaster Index k 9 [f' i'" ~ dard system. As a roault, SQN has on occasion used the 't

' f.' t '

' index as its official drawing rected control system for \\' 9: distr $tation and construction status information.

,e

!'![...%...M:i.f'r**.'.'. fS,/ /. l.9, I ~ . Watto be DC' personnel use the DMS for C0 drawing control. [. ' j'*:. $.l. according te. the WDU DCC supervisur. a <J.** j F . [yi.. ,f. Bo Mofonte DCC personnoi use thi, DH2 for CC drawing control, q; .f.gf..f';*., according to the Bl.N,DCC Acting supervisor. 4 4 : ' f,', f. y - ,.i ,h. f * $; L. c ',. %Y!;z . - lv ..q ! l. M' '. ; i j. J ':' I;l,k

r., ';c

", gt.,

,,., f,(!1, e' . e, \\ *. e ,,.;.,a-h ,P ..j llt 4

= c s. Jq qi.p. *;l.Q l

y -

. pg ( j ~: M g .,4.(. ,, ]' ' a; ; M,b. j,

• ). i q.

e .w, .jp. mp:;:l.T > hi, .J S g,9;.f - T v' t N a 2 f,!jl[g'f..ty

• r;..

t ATTACHKENT.B Page 5 of 8. IV.j. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS fif, 1 4 @y:,:l.lf..;&A f ' ' ' ' I'- O

. ' '. ~

~ A. p.' d.si.,,.d., M' A. - Conclusions' \\" .i g. 2 u'N ;;t e s ' ! : j o ~!Q:)I'Eh.i.' ' ',!;! i. ' l~.,' The employee concern is substantiated not on the specifics f of )E ; ..1 i- ..w i j i- 'y il i. i !j;S..G $ ~ p' .tthe concern but its substance. The basis for this conclusion. } ' ;11..l...;; I,.,:p'j 8.; J.i!/.;U;{;h,..g,f2f'.}J.f l. - - J.., i u L '. follows: I 1 3- . 'l .l t9t i 1 a

1..n

~ .' a. The ** current TVA system" for configuration control is '- > Mi ~:. ! ![p. ~..S.,

. %...[

,.l2.*.i5;isT,k;@.;(" 4

• intended to be the DMS not the master card index system es * "8i

!. hip l ?. alleged.' ' However, upper-tier instnactions do not preclude -

el 'r.,hl. Vill e.?, i. the use of the master card file and..therefore,. though SQN - . i .7-

• f 34g'i I *i 8 !-

'j t, DCC personnel. are complying with the updating of. DMS for SQN. D*.Y.. f gh 't"$,,i. 2 t Hti.$* *' * 'f[M@. CC drawings in accordance with upper-tie S." 1: T .2) requirements, they are not meeting the literal iVitent of. . / j'ibb.d i - 3...;i t!'hP;;, l I. .d:9 the requirements to use DMS exclusively, since SQN DCC. 2 -. personnel continue to maintain and utilize the naster index.

l%

• j

".%),eD,.t :

.?..! :;p. . The SQN master 'index system is not a reliable CC drawing + b.- 1.i,.':Y(!;rY.j'jl* D9l control system since it is not controlled nor is it an ,,9 p*?I.,~. Qji. -) approved QA program method. -

• 4

;c s:4! P

.h h ,.c. The master index 'is inadequate for TVA use 'bbealise it-is a i7;;$;w'. y.i:li.M. -. ;h jp localized system which does not provide accessibility to' ri .q ~ ji other TVA organizations havin' a need to obtain the proper dj!ht;h.$';Qk);.. gg,..d.. 72 s P.. a. j .3 'hd@"N U; '..,

• - '.as-constructed status of SQN equipment.

Accordingly, p&E (Nuclear) decided to replace,all the systems 2.

i.f. ;i $...N:T:

.= .d g a. r.. such as the master index with the DMS as~the single CC drawing "j* [;j n!!;rt. r';. i management system for p6E (Nuclear). Browns Ferry, Watts Bar, I and Bellefonte do not use a master index system for CC drawing

• . / $.,.i !. :

cont,rol but do use DMS. -t i: pa

• I 8I f.*..

B. Reco :::neridations. t !! w-L;. C -) - y@;*,.;.5..: >y. 1. i-85-472-Up3-01, Confinuration Drawint r Control Reevirements-1 s . l... ' jd!M;lj %d,, *,. '

• The upper' tier requirements conEnined in references 1 and 2 do
• :.'M not preclude the continued use of mact.cr index systems for con-4.

struction status and other information retrieval for CC draw-4 ,.:.; W...,.y;. j. y-ings -NSRS recommends: ~ n.f G....,..I 'J y! a. .'..[),j:,h: *... :

li That references 1 and 2 be revised to require DMS utili '

zation exclusively by site DCC organizations for CC drawing L. ;4!.J. ! *.i P. information retrieval, and b % ':t u s.:.' V "..b],[l l. t ;* ' .;.T]Jj b. that the master index be placed under the QA progra:n as a j ... -s..., lC. -

• "i V
• backup system, if desired, or until total conversion to DMS m'

".-t.it ;;.V'4r. .: L:: y.:. il. occurs. [p2] . if. .f,.t..;..y.. .} L~ h r:. L ' O.L. ;., ; ). . I e.!:;

• L i.

.J i.I. '.i! N.:'.2 ",*!?'!; V :!. 5 ry7;.q~ 00677

. !.Ms..t ' h.*

i .y

u 3;

g.y.. 3; 4., m p)Q,,' l,..a. tc A..; '

• Y w

t Nc "t Qi ' ' s' '.,. v ..? ll t ~ 's d)3.q'i d

2.. ;.I-85-472-NPS-02, 501LTIEllenneritation of DMS Page 6 of 8

. f. J 9b... : . p q+j'/Wh@{p'.t i..t, r Y[Lt3.cfu af f.S 1 + 's.SQN DCC has not implemented the DMS as the single CC drawing k t f , 67'

management system. NSRS recommends that SQN revise reference 19 h::ft q'gI d I,l*]$ M

? ";to require exclusive utilization of DMS for CC drawing informa-lN!Mh.8h..';'. ljition retrieval. This. action should establish the DMS as the - I!'l P j single CC drawing management system and discontinue DCC utill:a-r ?. % f I,I. ilj... i... 3 / ;. ;t ' .l'!.0 . tion of the master index.. (P2) ,lt. i.. + ,,g. t s..sf. :tiY. ;.:

3.,. I-85-472-NPS-03, Need to Perf orm Audit /Survev Haster Index

,,t.. . G!'l ;i h::. i /t q .l.. System ',f ::: y ;>.. ';; ,. Because SQN DCC is using the non-QA approved Master Card Index Ut system on occasion as its official drawing control system for ' T@elll j..' !. i 'u '* distribution and constiuction status information, DQA is ~ !! f requnsted to audit / survey the adequacy of this area in the near ';lh j,.j'., t' future and on a periodic basis until total conversion to DMS l.9r '!'. '. . occurs. . g.:4 : ; * .No response to this issue is required. USRS will moniter the ..ifj. ji'e progress of this issue based on the responses made and actions .j'd ' ' .taken to 1 and 2 above. IP3], ] i.. j.ii, y! I.ss ' d Lib .i .... ^. ".,. :..i .1 .,. M.!ia .t : es.... ,.'.. FtJ,. i.'..'/t.'.5.p: 'i :f ' j. ,'.. * ;7.igs(p,'.h s t' ... :-) s.

i. ; ;

...;L i t -. it i,.,) t }.

l. * ~&. Ci:y:.::.n:

.L 2.' ";i ' t'.. d - t !.'...y c. v,. 1 re. u :l.. p... i.i. ; I. i.('./...W' i 1*

• ?

r. (*-.. j p. l.s..- u,...n,. ; j e

• 3

'I .. y

.' [ g g }f ::J '.C:' .' *. -

q 3. n- ,r t4 .s 2:;:tp.. i.<....,..',T...e,.. t . o..,.,.. j e . c. ~.. .~.;.n., t.m.1h.y: e:.. r .i .. -i... -1;fV;Pitr.fi.:',.h.

1

.?:.&,J.V.

4.,'r,,F t -c.h,f$ U.j-) -

. L-

6. :. Will

'4 T .i r.,, %;. ) n. .c..U : ..f e ...: t... a.n . :,a .f... ', :;.:d;.*Ih'ptf.:.,.i. ' ^ ' T.s rl'Di dyr r * - P. 4 : ?...;i".?.7!?.:i; i. ;. ltk ~.t..'tn.:.Hi,;. ?d. : ,1:.

• 7-9 ~:

.e. n. z... i ,....,..l.....: t. ..., )'a.i':nl3hd r 9.. t l.r .gi

.. t..,1.:.

....e

s t 3 ? e

'.;"?&...*{b.yMtgy' ':,.Y;;jg,ld NIf1 e i.

• I.'.;l * 't.1\\ ;I,/,."T.,.;i *].e 1*

.r. 4,. t. o....... - s. j W.. :.;i.:.ii :.C.... :'.. !. S. f.pi.r't c.!.. y... 1 'If .? .6. 0067T p i r:<th.1,in.,,,. ~ '

..t.

+

s.g t...je s..

7 ~. G....),$.!H,~!r!.. 2, . i; p., < i J.ik... ATTACHMENT B Page 7 of 8 b C' ! !;j.1 'l.i'. ** ! ' DOCUMENTS REVIEED IN INVESTICATION NO. I-85-472-NFS i (

• ,b,

  , ig,.,.,

'8; AND REFERENCES .P........ I '.* : ? j. ; s; d .;. b..;. 1. NUC PR NQAM, Part III, Section'1.1, dated March .l.i...,y Control" 21,1985, " Document ..g ! si. 2. , NUC PR, NQAM, Part. V, Section 6.1 (ID-QAP-6.1), dated December 31, 1984, f " Configuration Drawing Control" d- '! 3. Drawing Management System (DMS) Users Manual, Revision 0 (B42 850606_509)* ..J ,F 4. j Memorandum from H. L. Abercrombie to Those listed, dated August 24, 1983,.'

[7l',',I

~ " Document Control and Dra' wing Management Meeting Notes" (L68 830817 801) j .,l ' 5. ' 2.' Memorandum from M. M. McGuire to R. D. Cuthrie, dated August 14, 1984, .llij 1i! "DMS Subtask Group of the Configuration Control Task Force" .M ~ p*M *;. U ' (L99*841023 003) 't i -[Q,

• i ed! 6. : Memorandum from R. D. Guthrie to Joe W.' Anderson, dated May 3, 1985 "l'. 'l

" Request for Drawing Management System (DMS) Qualit,y: Control and .,.d Inf ormstion Systems Analysis ' Services" (R25 850501 910),'- 41[.. .,. hj; 7. j. BFN - Regulatory Perf ormance Improvement' Plant - Oversight Group Meeting

{fy.q Minutes - No. 84-12

! ',j 8 , ! p * :.7.;.- .. i ',Q,] 8.], Memorandum from' R. H. Wright to PWR Project Files, dated April 17, 1984, j,.* y 4:[,"ik i !:' "SQU. - As-Cm:teneted Drawing Meeting Notes" (BWP 840417 004) F

.: h.'

• ' :.. '].L.: 9.. Mcmorandum from R. H. Wright to PWR Project Files, dated May 30, 1984, '
• .; l5. : l'h' ' j; 7 "SQN.- +As-Constructed Drawing Task Force" (B'v.*P 840530 001)

' '.. c n,!..!? ' : ' ;T t a. .....::'10.13 Memorandum fifom R. H. Wright to PWR Proj ect Files, dated Au' gust 16, 1984, !,3,U !E'$[b:' "SQN.- As-Constructed Drawing Task Force" (BWP 840S16 006) L Ni,[11.'.'. Memorandum from R. H. Wright to PWR Project Files, dated March i f Nl.Jl I,(p)j P 21, 1984, n. -(...!;'Otih.. @ *Y,(

• M '. Q.*.. *

"BFN - As-Constructed Drawing Task Force - Meeting Notes" (BWP.840321 004)

*.. i..t' P..L. S. El.7*

.r J { M 12.';I* Memorandum from H. J. Green to A. W. Crevasse, dated March 8, 1982,. l ',* k * ' [ ', " Joint Quality Assurance Audit Report No. JA8100-06" -(A24 820128 001) (L16 820305 876) - . ', q'.,r. t i i. '. ': }p -!i13. ! Memorandum from J. A. Coffey to R. J. Mullin, dated February 12, 1985, Y. "BFN - Deviations JA8100-06-A05 - As-Constructed Drawings" , '{;:'", '(R25 850212 952) 7'.y b:: 14. Task Force Report, dated June 3, 1983, " Report of Recommendations from i the As-Constructed Drawing Task Force" (A43 830711 005) I.t..., . ? ' C. g*:.. . g* !.P' "' ' * '.,, 3

• $i :

.d.!' ' 7 0067" 4

s Q;*il,I. 1 .I ~ 1

f,)^$h,Q; N F ic.h '

s * V al., r.. 4..

1. • 8* 8 f8 il h.W :..

!y;d'"h'M( IbI15f.j DEDC and QA&AS Joint Quality Assurance Audit Report No. JAB 100-06, dated el bl ib t "f;ii January 28, 1982 (A24 820128 001) 10lli j!*i,[' p.. ' ; t .s. ., j. i 4 ea, .'jj. pg 1;pii, a.;.%26.'l ANSI N18.7-1976', " Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the p 'j.:*;}. i j,i ;.; i.. i',- Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants" s-l. :..;t,p. :.p.. ;,. j. h.jt. Q'[@'17. ; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI, " Docum j. i .d 'r * ;- 'l .jh'.jg;l$yl18.I( SQN H&AI-3, Revs. 4 and 5. " Revision of A .l

• • 1 ii., d. ;hr

[I '

2 !M 19. SQN AI-25. Revisions 0 and 10. " Receipt, Filing, and Distribution of .l j '. !? ! !./J'. ? 8 Drawings" Wi .jt. ;.j 01: ' ' '. '. 'i@ 2'O.. L'UN AI-4.10, Revision 3, " Drawing Control Center for a Licensed Unit" .fi,.;.. ,]ij 21. BLE bit.5.9, Revision 17, " Drawing Control Before Receipt of an Operating 5 W,! t. License"

' H l.

. i !il e

r

,pg22.iBTEDCU-IMH-X.1,datedSeptember 22, 1985,.* Drawing Control"

. !..r,.1 :

tj - f'. T,-{l 23. ! Memorandu:. from R. D. Guthrie to James P. Darling, dated.0cy ber 5, 1984, I ' :.5.h.jl[.* 1:.j ].' e '. * '[i "BFN - Drawing Management System (DHS) Dudet RequesC". N .ly [q i' (R25 841002 864)

3.c..s.!;pa.;;v; y[l :

i

r. -

e;g5 24.*IHemorandum from Michael L. Scalf to R. D. Guthrie, dated July t ,1 15, 1985, i-vT! :;;b. :..i. "DMS Overview II" (B04 850715 902) 3 -;;.O, .i .n. a.a... ;.. i '. ',. '..h.. k,' ~ . p../. ,.)L. ; .p;,. .. a ::.. i .f (. u ,. sl t ..>n 9 ... a:.. [ ] .. wi t.,..:. .n.s,. ~ 2i%..p P,;,.- .. a:l.: w t. t .p ) 1. . pur. ..q : R. . ;.w... - ;. t ~ :.. !a;p:m... 1...e :..,1;:w:, i i i ; ;M::r.: '. i tu .n_

I w{.;r.>-

i 3.': ; c::r.. ..u:r ..n::: * . a;.. c ;;ig p;u: .~.; C,.; 4...

:w: '.;,.

. m. 1.:c;;y;.; m. w t:,1

g.-r:'f.::.!!d::,...

,.. it ' 8 0067T t:NU/::

jg.

i

~ m .T i 5 ATTACIMENT C NSRS INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. I-85-460-NPS 4 0 0

• f 4

4 e '6 e I 6 I e e 7-p, f p 7 1 vf v ' L ~ -

i ~ r, .: 1 ~. -([ j,,., 'A ,-t 's - .... in,.ti:.,s.l., l./; b. i .e . e-se ~ ~ I 4 3., . {. -.. q:[v.Mg.y s'* e ATTACHMENT C Page 1 of 6 ...,J v,...p -t.2

• j;,l y:l 7* l rl.

ff

,,i

.* q.,

.t q,.: ; 6; 4

a

. -..C iij : 4. / TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 5 ..: 1.. 2 .,T! - NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF ., r.i ; ' i s. ,' f., NSRS INVESTIGATION REPORT No. I-85-460-NPS ' ' 1, EMPLOYEE CONCERN: II-85-062-001 {- .,,;. i

SUBJECT:

DRAWINGCONTR0bATOFFSITELOCATIONSANDDRAWINC'HANAG

a.?

SYSTEM ACCURACY s Ir;in7. DATES'0F, INVESTICATION: OCIDBER 2-20, 1985 .ro

• ,.-a,f. g..

. :.. q '; '. s e, ;,- ~,. -[.[ hlb (AA ., f, *

• IhV STICATOR:.

2[i[W

q',. 4.,.g*j.!-

R. E. MCCLURE DATE =.I.

'. b:,,.

,o I ~ ' y.r..h.. IlhESTICATOR: [ bx M' 3 ,/ .. T..,. W. R. SIMONDS' / DATE

=.

j j --' ::. REVIEWED BY: .A n. 3//, d't. ~ '. C. CATLIN !.6 .a r, DATE . ' ;l ~. 4 j!,,* ~

)

~ ...fAPPROVED BY:.- 'Al@A/ ]7 c. W. D. STEVENS _ - DATE ...t.. .....s * + . s o. f. W.;'..t. ;! - 2 , 6 3, s....... g. >l e .. i.y. y. *

• 3

. U;.

• n.

e . I..'Ik a ' ..r.

• 18,, *;-

...') ' '.. 8.1,3 :. 1 p.. .'tr' ..p.n. . r.,.s.. 9- -).-P.' ,i

,,. i.,M..... -i.'. :.t : fy. = ' I -j ,7, ' N d..Q . i ::(.* r " m 2 H!d,y.; t ',g ~' ATTACHMENT C Page 2 of 6 .i.- N.. t.. .p.t ...tF y, ;.;! / ' ' l': '.j d..?tg.,..I. BACKCROUND ..'7

; t........i.

"4 ', * ' ' *.,,A Nuclear. Safety Review Staff (NSRS) investigation was conducted to ', -((,b.:1; j ;

• detennine the validity of an' expressed employee concern as received by.

.,g!]d :;',j. the Quality Technology Company (QTC)/ Employee-Response Team (ERT). The concern of record as summarized on Employee Concern Assignment Request

g4,i

,th;.formfromQTCandidentifiedasII-85-062-001

'J stated: ! 3..//:P '. i. n .i;('. . 1;

i.,.

Browns Ferry, Bellefonte, Sequoyah - CI has been unoffi- , f;l '.; cially informed that the latest drawings on all TVA ' k, ', '. ^ nuclear power plant si'tes are not, in the majority of D -i instances, the latest drawings at offsite TVA administra-tive offices / departments, including a computer printout J i. that does not reflect the current drawing revision. This can, and does, cause design, modification, and/or

• }

repair problems. g .y,, .~ '.A_* g II. SCOPE

• i!;.

A. The scope of his investigation is defined by the concern of record 4 % '.[;.. ;.'! i;,; which entails determining the validity of this' concern, management. d..j.j!P'j,' recognition of the problem, and corrective actions being evaluated. 1'sIep,;,. + ..',}!$'2f.i' B. The NSRS reviewed documents and interviewed. cognizant personnel to , [p(,.':':.)','D..,. ' ' - determine'if offsite locations did have the current drawing revision - and'if the Drawing Management System (DMS) reflected the current.

ya gfy,

information.

• ci.i.

g.,". m..... - d h III.' - SU} DIARY OF FINDIUCS , e i'. '. -t .'I ' - - '. A. Requirements and Co:=itments a:- (. 1Q 10 CFR {' art 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, " Instructions, ""'y y t

';i

.i l' Procedures, and Drawings"; Criterion VIc " Document-Control" .Y'rffi j ., : 7,,. M...,' '..j,'

2. [ EN DES-EP 4.19. " Drawing Management System Users Manual" s.-.-

,I (4,.. [.p,,,$i ! ;3l!,NuclearQualityAssuranceManual(NQAM),PartV,Section2.4

. ' 1

'd (ID-QAP 2.4), " Control of Modifications," dated July 10, 1985

• E i f it,i O..

and Section 6.1 (ID-QAP,6.1), " Configuration Drawing Control " i ;I. .,",M dated' December 31, 1984 ,.w l-(t

.

i..[

s pr :;. ;.' '

4.' NQAM, Part III, Section 1.1, " Document Control," dated March 21, a F:.k;:. / 1985 . i. g. ',.] ,,M* ,,e e. I .. 4; * ? *.pJ!;t-1 ', P.

~ - 7 i'. 4..:t, >ti. :.P )' ; - . r,- .,.) ' ) A. e-l '}

.&.L

?

.c e.,, ;',q '

..ff'd,. ' ' ATTACHMENT C Page~3 of 6 1 ( 's'(,'p;g,..;us : '.y ;i% ' Findings ., : :*i I:.,,h;'.,. ' - .B.- .1 i ' g y,M 1. There have been frequent cases over the years of offsite

j.

,.L:h..% . document control centers not having the-latest drawings and the ,ip.. ',. n. .'! drawing infomation system in plac,e at the time not. reflecting c**)lh:l the latest revision at the site. This has been true both for i *,"as-constructed" and "as-designed" drawings and for both TVA and ') :N.'j,!,;. j t vendors. -The DMS-was implemented in December 1983 to provide 9'

• y.;c

.'. online. access for drawing infomation and is now the sole +

• s d ! j i.',

,,i drawing information system used by P&E (Nuclear). _However, ".* : 1,

• c,:

$. ip '.I the DMS. The DMS data base is being expanded throughout P&E to .i documentation (Ref. 9) was reviewed stating that all the

• I drawings used in design, operation, and maintenance are not in

', ' i ; h*h.'. 6 *., .fo . :,I , ' enhance data integrity. .. ' 'G.':'

• i t

2. Review of DCC logs, workplan generated changes to drawings, and l i's: 'I ' the DMS show that several months are often required for a 9I,s. E typical drawing change to be processed. '.[j,f /;[ 1: " 3.[Significant Condition Report'(SCR) SCR GENIMSE501.was initiated '.i.(, 'on' August 20, 1985, concerning data entry into;the,DMS not ' taking' place in a timely manner. This SCR documents a large

.!j.

~ * !'[],;i.: scale, corporate-wide problem that has been addressed with resources, goals, and reporting.

. '. y'?

'? ...u. i .d; i. 4, 4.l TVA has recognized this problem and has taken action as ' d,'. ' I I i e 5 ;*i: UN@.. '.1' evidenced by the following:- '*' I ' ' ' N 'l! i. !- I , T.h[,if.. '. ' ' ! a. A configuration management program was established June 13 i - Q ,f. i 1985, by J. A. Coffey, Site Director, Browns Ferry Nuclear b' Plant (BFN), as part of the P&E Configuration Control Task .!.1.l:. ul. - Force (CCTF). y .I- \\ b. "DMS Overview II" memorandum dated July 15, 1985, from ' * * ' q, ;. . Michael L. Scalf, Chaiman, DMS Subtask Group to R. D. d. .' : U' ~ ,t Cuthrey, Chairman, P&E Configuration Control Task Force, summarices current' activities and reflects that each nuclear n ,.'I. - V.h. plant has at least one representative on the group. 'l ' j!: Communication between the CCTF and the DCC'in Chattanooga c. . '[ i.f : - has taken place to detemine possible improvements. .':. l.. ..,':.'...)i,:f ";. I.' 'd. Quality Notice NQAM Part V, Section 2.4, entitled " Design "*h J'** ... '9 Change Control System Using Design Change Supplements.." was issued on September 9, 1985, to implement a pilot desigu . h,'.. change control system at BFN. I t. . :2ii Regulatory Perfomanc,e Improvement Plan (RPIP) action item e. y; No. 11.25 to " correct weaknesses in document control system" has been identified, and corrective action is being taken.

• i.,...'

. n' ,g ..:t ,56;, . r,...._ 2 E !,. I

m '3 3 (2 ..I'.hi'. 8 4. \\'. ;! [;fg$13;.'. '{J k - .; '3;. Page 4 of 6

• y:/

j j',;. . !i". t '>. s;M j i:. ' i,-. ATTACHMENT C C k'N!it ',$'i'.E,. 5.I After reviewing several workplan drawing changes and interview-b;',,jE.hib',_. ihingresponsibleemployees,itwasevidentthatthereisnota

• f # [.'y F.!C,, '; j )-

g g.i..,. M.,.". j '.i '. l.<. j "i: i a i -!. universal' understanding of how TVA is maintaining configuration ?- 1, 5 control via the DMS. Many employees do not recognize the need L for a DMS (and timely update to it) or the need to maintain

i..i.

j. " *.,

• I current drawings at offsite locations.

e u, a. 8- ..r 7 y lj

6. l'. Management appears to 'be unaware of general configuration

I.g.r;, ",)** *

i. management systems, such as described in reference 15.

i l i .gi. .. i ~ h.e: - IV. CONCLUSIONS.AND RECOMMENDATIONS .t g'* , :'/,* 4 A, . Conclusions g.;4; ; .p$,".. i ! The employee concern is substantiated for the following reasons: ., d;... J ',4 " 1.; The DMS has been less effective than it should be because: Iii*n,,b: a. The DMS base has never been fully defined and loaded.

• },!,'

i, i ..!;i.. b. Ucither management nor employees have a univers.al

9',

understanding of what configuration control means and how it f is to be impicmented via the DMS. c. Hanagement failed to puti in place audit and feedback . 9. i mechanisms on the sites to evaluate the DMS. d.' A large time cycle in the drawing update process at the . '..YY sites has resulted in out-of-configuration drawings in -l.de s offsite document control centers. .. G. 3..i'I'!I 2.. TVA has recogni=ed that the existing DMS is in need of d,' h.,. '.! ' improvement. "A task force has been established to address and C! resolve these problems, an'd.significant progress has been . ; f. I. :',i : . documented (Refs. 9 and 13).. a

..}.p. t, ;

1..d.fj'{E\\k, . } .'j '.. : B. Recommendations i l T.0::...., V I{ *"*y?,y.O P. 1.!;I-85-460-NPS-01, Prevent Pecurrence

• V pt;S 7

c 'f NN.iEl.] Implement the' corrective action and the actions required to .., k.. '!"[l~l'd..., i

l i,. prevent. recurrence of significant condition report SCR

e. "$...d.,1 ;i *.-

'GENIMS8501 as outlined below: i I t . 9 p. l :* I l'd :., '.' 'a. Establish appropriate instructions within OE to: .... :;;p [. ",f[h.,U ' (1) Define snoeifically which documents are to be entered '- *.5T. into DMS. . f y;p ' 4.. !.p).:in.';~."- .i :C,.

• .?.~.!r: i '

i 2 + i l l. ;'.i'. :. h tJ,$i':';*3l*/.. . ;l I e 61.. f! '

, *+0? 21 ;ll

' 3* l.-

p.

[ ' '. [ 'y. :'(

- T 1 .'ty'- .l. .h',

- 4,.

~ ATTACHMENT C Page 5 of 6 ., '.' i! '.'.. ' P.. E,v.. !I. (2) Esloblish all mandatory data elements to be entered. .*d. (3) Standardize exact procedure of data entry. t e (4) Provide schedule guidelines. j-b. Classify all' drawings in DMS into three categories, each [ with the following percent initial allowable date entry error rate: (1) critical 0% -(2) primary li r a (3) other 5% l f;d Nuclear projects ensure that appropriate management [ ..;,l ,c. emphasis, procedures, resources, and training are in place ., lb, 4 to maintain the data performance identified above. (P2] l j ..y,.... 2., I-85-460-NPS-02, SON. BFN WBN. and BLN Site Management Action (- t l . f;;-. ..h ' l Establish an expedited process and distribution system to handle i. l ' f };W.' drawing changes and updating of the DMS. Delei; ate;to the site .i i T. 'g:.:j !. QA unit the responsibility of auditing DMS site changes, j- ,'4,' tracking results, trending performance, and reporting on'these ,,),;;,,i parameters. IP2] i

) y:8. y..i o

,.. l.... i, -L

t i

iil. )

r.

i'll ;; J - : '!h. ;.

• s.. ' ln..,

f... i. . p ;.,..y.s. I- .d T.. > : .!l r i

, U!j a'h..,..

i u g $ 1 *..';.' -j;'.I.N 2 l-4 u;.lt. . t.l 'i ' 'l. -.eit ..t ; ~, M :! ;.','. i., a -. y ! I q. ', ' * . ;;.:i'.('.-

i;. ' 4,.. a.W

i * :.;;,'.','. ".

i j .. - :.. t..<* ' 4 .. :jj;,.g;; ...a 1 i f,, ;, ,c 4

(4 i

l .-n. b' i -i .g e 3 9-ki - ! lr.. g

.. l.ji c,.

A. f w.

?ly 3

• t.r"3

.,; ;.~, o ". 3 9

-,... H. p_

:,!

a> 4 ~ * ',. 'j, k.:. ',.,. ATTACHMENT C Page 6 of 6 i /*

• h. a O '.*

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED IN INVESTICATION I-85-460-NPS c AND REFERENCES .e r:,,.,. -

f.~;;

'].%.. ?

.'.I,,W.11. TVA ' memorandum from T. Chapmari to N. Beasley,' " Documentation Problems , [j *,, E . Identified in Configuration control Task Force Meeting Notes of . j..] ; I!: }j Harch 6, 1985" (B45 850603 200). .., s, jr y'.:.' 2. I. TVA memorandum from R. Guthrey to J. Anderson dated.May 3,1985 " Request l';h';,p2':** I f or.DMS QC and Inf onnation Systems Analysis Service" (LOO 850507 513) eg;.1

• d" 3.. TVA' memorandum from M. Scalf to C. O' Dell dated October 18, 1985, l
• 7 :!$, ;'

" Request for DMS Adjunct Support" (no RIMS /MEDS number) . I'*f.{.9,.:

• :; y ?,. 4..

Operational Quality Assurance Manual - Drawing Control dated November 2 1984 j, '.'.M"f'. ". j ; - [., .!. ' t ' 5,. ID-QAP 2.4.. " Control of Modifications.," Rev. 7/10/85 -,' f,p,. '.6. NQAM Part V, Section 2.4, " Design Change Supplements," Rev. 7/10/85 s;,:.. . ;,:t. 7.SCRGENIMS 8501 dated August 20, 1985 (B04 850820 001).,I,. N ~ M'.!.': .4?TZ. B. Regulatory Performance Improvement Plan - Action Item 11.25 i

l:1 c

t g-

• N.i.( 9.

12, 1985, "DMS J'.j g.... TVA memorandum from H. Scalf to R Cuthrey dated March Overview" (B04 850312 400) k 1 * * '. hi " - ' j &.10.- TVA memorandum from R. Cuthrey to Those listed dated October 9, 1984, ... '. @j !!,' ~ " Configuration Control Task Force - Subtask Groups" (DEN 841011 011) ': } 11. TVA memorandum from R. Wright'to Design Services Files date,d January 31, 1985, "BFN - Office of Power Engineering Configuration Control Task ' '.7 Force" (QMS 850225'202) 1 ,e*" 12. TVA memorandum from R. Cantrell to D. Bowen dated November 21, 1984, "DMS - Engineering Projects Responsibilities" (IMS 841121 002) i,. .Li c.

':i ' 13.

NSRS draft report R-85-11-NPS / 4 14. TVA memorandum from M. Scalf to R. Cuthrey dated September 30, 1985, "DMS 'r' l' Activities Report" (no RIMS /MEDS number) .'}I ,"*j-15. DOE Directive 4700-Draf t dated 2-20-85, Chapter 3, Section C "Configura-

O

't-tion Management" 'u! ;*: - [,., t,:. .: g".: ya e - d :11.. 5 t .se.

m C3 -e ATTACHMENT D NSRS Investigation Report No. I-83-13-NPS e 0 e O O I e

'f ~.. e. ? s.' .? t ATTACHMENT D Page I of 44 ,l i GNS '84 03 01 150 1 840305X0187 [1 f. l TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHOIRTY NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF. I,( NSRS REPORT NO. I-83-13-NFS INVESTICATION OF CONCERNS RECARDING QEB RECORDS $

SUBJECT:

\\ T h i DATE OF .~ INVESTICATION: MARCH I6 - MAY 6, 1983 i M' s N INVESTIGATOR: m/7N R. D. SMI f ' ' % _f//2/P.7 DATE' INVESTIGATOR. .,, fff - 1. R. W. TEAYIS ' _6'n/4-7 DATE' APPROVED BY: 3 I. W. WIITT _$ //!@ DATE k MEDS, W5863 C-K G 6 h 4 i

g %.9.- ' .\\ 'l ATTACIDiENT D Page 2 of 44 _n O TABl.E UF CONTENTS = mi Pope l

1.

SUMMARY

1 II. SCOPE L 2 'E 1 III. TACTS. 2 L A. Functional and Organi'zation of QEB.. 2 2 B. Concerns Regarding QEB Records 3 -j C. Quality Assurance Record Requirements 4 3 h 1. Documents External to TVA.'......... 5 r a. 10CTR50, Appendix B 5 g b. ReFulatory Guide (RG) 1.88. 5 m c. ANSI N45.2.9. .. '. J,.. 6 2. Documents Interal to 'ITA ' 6 TVA Topical Report 6 a. b. Interdivisional Quality Assurance. Procedures. 7 D. Implementation of Quality Assurance Record Requirements. 9 i 1. Quality Engineering Branch 9 M l

2., Division of Construction Il 5

3. Management and Engineering Data Systems (MEDS) 12 ) E. Handling Practices for Vendor-Supplied QA Records 13 1. Quality Engineering 11 ranch 13 m M c. Mechanical / Nuclear Unit 16 g b. Civil / Architectural Unit 17 c. Veldments Unit 18 d. Instrumentation Unit 19 e. Electrical Unit 19 2. MEDS,. k 20 J. Division of Construction - Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 21 ppt 4 Division of Nuclear Power - Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 23 F. Randomly Selected Contract File Flow. 23 1 IV. Analysis d" 26 c A. Availability of Complete Records at SQN 26 E. Usability of Records by NUC PR. 30 C. Ability of the TVA System to Meet the NRC and ANSI Requirements 31 D. Safety Significance 32

.'..._.i 7i l e t. h ATTACIDiENT D Page 3 of 44 y' o. TABLE OF C0hTEh*TS (Continued) l l I I D { V. Conclusions 33 l VI. Judgecient of Needs a 31 I ATTACIDtENTS r - QEB Organization Chart E 4 ' - Suinmary of Contract Files Reviewed g 5 g-f ~. 4 Yw b i g ,s e + f v A r i a 'E

Q W'st?Cf'" ? g s.L-f.$YI(

• W~ " '

l ~ 's n ~ i O ATTACHMENT D O age 4 of 44 P e t 1.

SUMMARY

As requested by the Assistant General Manager (Technical), the Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) investigated concerns regarding the inadequary of QEB records. More specifically those records that are g required by NRC to document that commodities requiring TVA source inspection for nuclear plants meet the design specifications. The l concerns were.nat the record system did not meet either the NRC or ANSI requirements, that control and review for accuracy and complete-ness of the records were less than adequate, and that the documents receiving a second and third technical review for technical were not accuracy. OEB is responsible for assuring TVA that vendors supplying equipment and materials provide those commodities in accordance with TVA's contract specifications through inspecti,on of the vendor's QA program and the commodities manufactured. the vendor QA documentation and providing itQEB is responsible for collecting .r to the Division of Nuclear Power (KUC PR), the ultimate holder of the records. ggg In order to fully determine the extent of the problems relating to the alleged concerns, this investigation included an examination of the system for handling QEB records from generation to ultimate I i s tora ge. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) was chocen as the ultimate location because it was the newest facility on line and, according to the TVA Topical Report, all quality asssurance (QA) records were r required to be onsite at the time of the investigation. 1% o p, The investigation determined that the concerns were valid in varying Ols degrees for all of the QEB units. It also became clear to the inves-tigators that prablems within QEB both a f f ected and were affected by organi:ations other than QEB. In summary, the following problems were identified relating to QEB records. The investigition determined that, with what NSRS considers minor variations, the written procedures provide for the collection, verificatinn of accuracy and completion, and transfer of vendor QA records to NUC l'R in a manner which is in compliance with URC and ANSI requirements. However, with inadequate implementation of those procedures, particularly across organizational boundaries, the com-pleted sets of QA records were not getting to NUC PR. Even if FUC PR were to receive a complete set of records for a given product, in p their current form the records would not be in a condition that would allow easy ret rieval of information. These deficiencien place TVA in violation of 10CPR50, Appendix B, Criterion VII requirements for SQN; and unless g changes are made to correct the problems, both k'a tts b Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) and Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN) will be subject to the same violations. At the time of this investigation, CEB did not know how many con-tracts for SQN were complete, and therefore, associated QA document t records required to be onsite. They did not know with any degree of certainty whether or not QEB had all the vendor QA documentation required to support fulfillment of the contract specifications; they r

ergvWyttMS*WW[ ~ [N e g ATTACmiENT D g Page 5 of'44 thought they did but could not verify it 1977 consistingrecords to the Division of Construction (CONST) at SQN o of about 55 cubic feet. urred in currently has over 500 cubic feet of completed contractQEB estimates that it

11 TVA nuclear plants stored in Knoxville and did not k records for-cubic feet were in the regional offices awaiting shipment to K now how many

";N CONST placed the 1977 shipment of QEB records in f111 noxville. documents received with equipment.:eparate from the filing cabinets ng cabinets know they were there until NSRS enquired about themCurrent CONST person film its vendor QA records which were received with various CONST had tiEDS shipments, but these were incomplete when compared to the revi vendor QEB records. CONST provided that film to SQN NUC PR. ewed received the film and reportedly reviewed. it for readability SQN NUC PR ever, according to a person in charge of CONST QA records Ilow-mately 80 percent of the CONST generated QA records for unit I , approxi-unreadable and the hard copy has been destroyed. are Regarding the second and third level of technical review I gotion found that units other than the Electrical Unit'wer..the investi-forming them. accuracy and completeness by the unit supervisors. Procedures e not per-i e review is not required. A third level of necessarily required for all contracts but may well be benefici l contracts with vendors having known or suspected problems a on The following report will show that the handling of approximat l million dollars of vendor QA records is inadequate and will requi e y 700 tens of man years of effort to collect, verify for compl t re securacy, and organize and store in an easily retrievable mann e eness and records for approximately 1800 completed contrnet purchases er The present unacceptable condition of vendor QA records is att ib more to the lack of implementation of procedural requirements intent rather than inadequacies in the procedures th n h r uted and W .same un' acceptable condition is related to divisions an eimelves. The involved in the collection and flow of vender QA data w f together to reach a common goal beneficial to TVA and not t orking own best interest. o their i g II. SCOPE { d Concerns regarding QEB records were investi I ti Estion techniques and t1 ORT analysis. tated using standard inves-III. FACTS i A. i Function and Orranization of OEB E QEB is charged with the responsibility to rvaluate the quality control programs of vendors supplying commodities which require source inspection (at the vendor's plant). It is further charged 9 i

} (( ; >m'. ( L ' ', e .l:. ? 0 t I h ATTACIDiENT D hPage6of44 I I with the responsibility of assuring t h.s t the commodities pur-chased physically meet the cont ractural or purchase order speci- [ fications and to collect, maintain, and transmit to the user of l l the comodity documented proof that the commodity complies with the specifications. Quality of the rommodities is verified by Ej TVA regional inspectorn out the United States, plus Knoxville, located in eight regional offices t 2 and commodities are not released from the vendor's plant until the inspector has docu-E mented evidence that the contract specifications have been met, The flow of those documents, both theoretically and in practice, h are described in sections !!!.D and.E, respectively. g Under the direction of the Branch Chief, QEB oversees the manu-for TVA which require source inspec-facturing of commodities tion. E A method of keeping track of the niunber of contracts and their value was established in the 1970s, and as of December 31, 1980, QEB was inspecting 1,824 contracts valued at billion dollars. Since then, through May 10, 1983, 994 contracts over two ,r were added and none removed. Removal of a contrnet from this list required the cont ract to be complete andsthe ' file trans-mitted to the QEB Records Unit (NOTE: In March 1983 the per-m sonnel and functions of QEB Records Unit were transferred to MEDS. For convenience and because the units had not been offi-g5 cially renamed yet, Records Unit.) or the site.the report will continue to refer to the QEB S Since no contract records have been sent to either location by QEB for several years, the number of 4 active contracts and their dollar value may be greatly inflated. The branch chief estimated that at least 80 percent of their work was nuclear related, and the vendors added manuf acturing, g testing, and documentation cost associcted with producing a r quality product with the required traceability added 64 percent d to the normal cost of the commodity. Guaranteed quality usually g' ~ requires closer attention to product processing, sometimes requires more time per unit produced, and can in some cases add i to the cost of initial production, flowever, an ef fective QA/QC program more than pays for itself through increased reliability and performance. Tinding problems during msnufactuirng is cost f: effective when compared to finding them at a later date. l Organizational 1y, QEB is divided into Field Operations (con-taining the eight regional offices) and Central Quality Control. d Staff sizes, including clerient, for the Field Operations was 73 in 1980 and is currently at 39. For QED Knoxville, including i the Branch Chief's Staff and Central Quality Control, it was 33 in 1980 and is currently at 31. Central Quality Control is l divided into five units each responsible for a commodity manu-i factured under their speciality. These units are titled: weld-ments, mechanical / nuclear (including NSSS), instrumenta tion, civil / architectural, and electrical (see attachment 1). F B. Concerns Regardine QEB Becorda i l NSRS was requested by the Assistant General Manager (Technical) to investi Eate concerns regarding QEB records and to prepare a report documenting the investigation findings. i l

~ Page 7 of 44 ATTACHMENT D O e The concerns were that the recordu system prnhably did not meet i NRC or ANSI requirements; that the vendor generated QA documents g that or completeness or being adequately. controlled.come to TVA throug e I In support of these concerns, a room full of documents stored in the QEB Cedar Bluff office in deteriorating boxes stacked one on top of the other with only a contract number on the outside was described. E The concerns further identified that records turned over to the 5 QEB Records Unit by the unit supervisors were being indexed and N reorganized by nontechnical clerical personnel; that vendor QA documents were not being reviewed a second and third time for 3 technical accuracy and completeness by the other unit supervisors g or the contract technical engineer; and that if documentation was q found missing in a contract that had been closed out for several g years, it might be difficult, if not impossible, to duplicate that N g, document from a vendor's file because ir. some cases vendors have g gone out of business. r' C. Quality Assurance Record Reouirements The vender generated quality assurance records that a nuclear utility is required to accumulate and store are defined by a hierarchy of documents. The control and handling of these 3 records is also described in the documents. These documents and their relative position in the hierarchy 'of control are listed 4 below:' C 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion VII, " Control of Furchased ((Y Material, Equipment, and Services" and Criterion XVII, " Quality Assurance Records." Regulatory Guide 1.88, " Collection, StoraEe, and Main-tenance of Nuclear Power Plant Quality Assurance Records." ANSI N45.2.9-1974, " Requirements for Collection, Storage, and Maintenance of Quality Assurance Records for Nuclear Power Plants." Topical Report TVA-TR75-1, " Quality Assurance Program l Description for Design, Construction, and Operation. Interdivisional Quality Assurance Procedures'(ID-QAP) Hanual for Nuclear Power Plants. ID-QAP 17.1, " Transfer of Quality Assurance Records for Design and Construction" ID-QAP 17.2, " Quality Assurance Records for Design and / ~ Construction 1 i i Ia

i

'.:~'!

'i l;_ h}Q.,y,?iJ J.' l.;>{*h% ' N.i Y ?....

i. :' ^

^ ". . ~...'. ' '?. .o, ~ ~ O ATTACIDiENT D O age 8 of 44 { P Documents External to TVA k 1. 100FR$0, Appendix B [ a. E Title 10. Part 50, Appendix B of the Code of Tederal Regulations is the controlling document for all quality ! E for a nuclear power plant, { assurance activities 10CTR50, Appendix B, criterion VII, requires, g in part, g that measures be established to assure that purchased ec.aterial and equipment conferm to the procurement rk documents.. Also, these measures must provide, as 3 app ropria te, for objective evidence of quality fur-F niched by the vendor. The documenting evidence that procurement requirements are met must be available at the plantsite prior to installation or use of the materials or equipment. This documenting evidence must be retained at the nuclear power plantsite and shall be suffielent to identify the specific require-i I p ments, such as codes, standards, or specifications met by the purchased material and equipment. This crite-g rien has remained virtually unchanged since its issue ha in 1970. l k Criterion XVII requires, in part, that sufficient i records be maintained to furnish evidence that activi-ties affecting quality were appropriately performed i and that the applicant establish requirements con-W cerning record retention, such as duration, location, and assigned responsibility. b. Regulatorv Cpide (RG) 1.88 _h The regulatory guides provide methods acceptable to g NRC in complying with the Comission's regulations. RG 1.88, revision 2, 1976, specifically gives guidance for Criterion XVII and states in Part C, " Regulatory Position," the following: g,, y) The requirements and guidelines for collection, storage, and maintenance of nuclear power plant @p quality assurance records that are included in ANSI N45.2.9-1974 are acceptable to,the NRC staff and provide an adequate basis for complying with the pertinent quality rssurance requirements of d g Appendix B to 10CTR Part 50. This statement is unchanged f rom revision 0 issued N in 1974 TVA was coer.itted to the requirements of the f regulatory guide with the following exceptions: Tor Browns Terry, OEDC will use one-hour filing cabi-nets for temporary record storage and OEDC will pro-vide a two-hour rated vault for permanent record ,4s'

ATTACHMENT D Page 9 of 44 e e

• e

storage, por Segunyah and Watts Bar, only the excep-tion that OEDC would provide two-hour f111ng cabinets for temporary record storage was taken. For Bellefonte, 11artsville, and Phipps Bend, the exception that OEDC would provide one-hour rated filing cabinets for tem-porary storage of records was taken, c.

ANSI Nt.5.2.9 Sirice RC 1.88 endorses an ANSI standard, the standard beccmes the controlling docurrent. ANSI N45.2.9-1974 states, in part, that: This standard provides general requirements and guidelines for the collection, storage, and mainter.ance of quality assurance records asso-cisted with the design, manufacture, construc~ r' tion, and cperation phase activities of nuclear power plar.ts. This standard delineates technical requirements; 4 receipt of records nethods; storage, preservation,' and r~< safekeeping methods; retrieval requirements; and dis-position of records. It does not specify where the records are to be physically maintained. This stand- , ard was not intended to cover the generation of records. Also, it does not apply to activities covered by Section III, Divisions I and 2, and Section XI of the ASS Beiler and Pressure Vessel Code. 2. Docurents I nt e rr.a l t o T3 Each organizational level w!Lhin TVA had developed a docu-ment which described the handling of QA records at that level. The TVA Topical Report sa the controlling TVA document and each lower level document must adhere to that I. centrol. The Topical Report may be e:: par.ded upon and explained, but all commitinents rnade in the Topical Eeport must be satisfied. Most of the TVA controlling documents have been re',Ised several timen since the records being reviewed were initially created. The handling of the records, of course, must adhere only to the controls in effect at the time of their creation. Since the first procurernent riocusents were written for SQN, the NRC regulations have been ti htened considerably; but the basic requirernent that E QA records be raaintained onsite in an easily retrievable canner retrains unchanged. y[ TVA Topical Report a. Topical Report TVA-TR75-1 presents the TVA Quality Assurance Program developed for the planning, design l l and construction, operation, and maintenance of TVA i

-. y r ~,. QR.{R:).5."',._l'*l;f$ jk5;$ N. h ' ; 2 ! Y ' j(\\ 1 e O p ~ ~ m ATTACIDiENT D Page 10 of 44 i nuclear plants. It is thus the highest level TVA docuroent for controlling the activities being investi-gated. Revision 5 of this topical report dated July 1982 has been accepted by the NRC and, revision 6 submitted to NRC for approval and draf t 1 of revision 7 remain essentially unchanged in the areas investi-y gated. Section 17.1A.I.2.3, "EN DES Quality Engi-( neering Branch," defines the organization and respon-g sibilities of the Quality Engineering Branch. r Section 17.1A.l.2.3 states, in part, "The Quality Engineering h Branch (QEB). . is responsbile for determining that the manufacturers and suppliers of equipment and materials for the nuelcar power plants fulfill the technical and quality requirementn as defined in the procurement specifications." Section 17.1A.17.1 states, in part, "EN DES QEB is responsible for sup-plier QC records on those contracts in which QEB g inspection is required. This responsibility is to see that such records are sent and incorporated into the MEDS system. ." Section 17.lA.17e2 states, in part, " Construction QA Procedure, ' Quality Assurance ^ Records,' contains similar provisions for records ' generated or received at the site during the construc-tion phase." Section 17.!A.17.3 states that "the t transfer of OEDC QA Records to NUC PR is established in an Interdivisional Quality Asssurance Procedure. The transfer system nakes provisions so that OEDC QA i records are readily retrievable by NUC PR at all times." s b. Interdivisional Oun_litv Assurance Procedures i The ID-QAPs allocate responsibilities to the dif ferent

• 1 divisions within TVA for the various quality assurance functions.

ID-QAP 17.2, beetion 1.0, " Objective and Scope," states: This procedure establishes the guidelines and identifies the interface responsibilities for l controlling quality assurance records within OEDC. L Section 2.1.2.d under " Responsibilities. Division of Engineering Design," states: Turnishing CONST with evidence that purchased items conform to the procutement requirements (attachment 2). l to ID-QAP 17.2 contains a listing of the " Records Required at the Site Prior to Installation or l Use." This at taciunent referenres the "ticAdoo Letter" ( which was a letter to J. D. ticAdoo, ?!anager of Licensing l

-9 9 ~ + ATTACIDiENT D Page 11 of 44-i y A and Reliability, Vest,inghouse Electric Corporation, f from C. K. Beck, Deputy Director of Regulation, U.S. o AEC (now U.S. NHC) on May 11, 1971. The letter con-tained, as attachments, " Guidance for Criterion VII Regarding Certification Systems" and the " Westinghouse q j Implementation of AEC Criterion VII Guidance Regarding q g-Certification Systems." The body of the letter itself 2 contains the AEC criticism of the Westinghouse imple- ) menting document. There is no description of how bh Vestinghouse modified its program to meet the AEC j lj requirements. Attachment 2 of ID-QAP 17.2 describes how TVA is implementing the AEC ;;uldelines. It does q this by referencing the "McAdoo Letter" and adding p some special requirements. Under Special Requirements g' it states that "for Code Material a Certified Mill Test Report on Certificate of Conformance and any required radiographs are required." f" ,r The Vestinghouse certification system had.t'hree docu-ments: (1) a Quality Assurance Release (2) a copy of the purchase order w (3) a copy of the equipment specifications '[ 2 TVA meets parts 2 and 3 by stating these items are included in the procurement documents supplied to the construction site by the procuring organizatien. Part I was met by its being supplied by the vender er by QCB. TVA did not go into the degree of detail in describing its system as Westinghouse did, it did not address the criticism that the AEC had of the Vesting-house description, nor did it have an NRC or AEC criticism or neceptance of its program; The Vesting-house three part system was acceptable in its bare N lorm, but the detailed method of implementation of the system was not acceptable to NRC and the "McAdoo k il ~ 1.etter" described what Vestinghouse had to do to make it acceptabla. ID-QAP 17.1 describes the method of transferring records from EN DES and CONST to NUC PR.* hTC PR is the ultimate user of the records being collected and generated and, therefore, must be in s'ponitten to use those records. The responsibilities of EN DES include receiving, storing, maintaining, indexing, and trans-ferring to hTC PR supplier QA records (except receiv-r ing inspection reports) required by contract specifi-ca ti ons. CONST responsibilities include receiving, storing, and maintaining supplier QA records. CONST c i l also arranged for the transfer of QA records to hTC FR E, as required by the ID-QAP. These QA records, of course, include much more than vendor-supplied records. I: _______,,__,.._,._.n,.-- >-e--~'Yw'~'"'

wh._ __ _ x.u_. c.< A W ' ' *^ a ATTACIDiENT D Page u. ot e 0 hTC PR was required to accept CONST and EN DES and maintain them.the QA records from MEDS had the tributing EN DES and CONST QA records to h i s-D. Implementation of Quality Assurance Record R equirements Af ter the responsibilities of the various organiz ti defined by the ID-QAPs, each orgenization tha ons were means to implement the requirements allocated t en had to hav the Quality Assurance Program Requirement ea o it. OEDC used Procurement, issued procedures.and Construction (l'RM). s Manual for Design, EN DES used Engineering Procedures for thisUnde purpose and CONST used Quality Assurance Procedures and C tion Procedures. I onstruc-( PRM 17Q PR-1, " Program Responsibilities (R0 issued June 29, , R1, November 15, 1982 EN DES responsibilities 1982), assigned' responsibilities to EN DES and CONST. plier QA records until turned over to MEDS and "assurinincluded mainta supplier records were identifiable and retrievabl g that system compatible with hTC PR and CONST requireme t e and in a responsibilities included assurance that CONST and c n s. CONST records are identifiable and retrievable during the c ontractor phase. CONST was also required to maintain supplier reco d onstruction until turned over to EN DES (MEDS). rs g m es RD, April 2,PRM 17 QPD-1, " Management and Engineering Data Sy phases of the records management 1979, stated that MEDS was respon g s ems (TEDS ), " codes and standards and Federal regulationsrecords p ygM ustry that documents which furnish evidence of qu liIt also stated r activities affecting quality or documents whi h hty of items and/or a i retrieval significance for any OEDC organization o c ave expected sent to tiEDS. No mention was made about distribution of microfil r for TVA, are i 1. m. Quality Engineering Branch Activities of QEB in the area of vendor QA records were g controlled by the following division-wide engineering 5 procedures. EN DES-EP 5.4, " Release of QA Items Prom Suppliers' Shops to Construction Site," R6 " Inspection - General Instructions," ROand the branch-w neering Records and Dispusal," RO, January 22QE , March 4, 1983; September 1,1982 (R0 issued February 9QEB-EP 24 1982; and 1979). three branch engineering procedurec were in 19E2 p ] e Prior to 1982, and 19C3. there was very little in the way of a I formal w I ~

i i ATTACIDiENT D Page 13 of 44' O O program in effect for the Knoxville of fice of QEB. This was verified in conversation with the Supervisor, Field Operations and others within the QEB organization. i I I a. EN DES-EP 5.43 I( 1 This EP described the method for setting up a contract file at the regional offices and the Knoxville office, g q lt described the duties of the regional inspector end Q of the QEB personnel in Knoxville. W One duty of the TVA inspector was to verify that H "perf ormance test reports are accurate and complete 4 g and that documentary evidence exists that the items g-conform to procurement requirements, including cali-g!. bration of test tools and equipment." Also, the t inspector " handles" supplier test reports and other I data" as follows: 3 5 (1) Sends cable test reports, performance test reports, e and other data that require QEB or technical engineer approval to Central QC Knoxville, as they are obtained. (2) Requests the supplier to send data packages for structural and piping loose material and code g data report forms for items which require ASME Code, Sect'.on Ill, N-symbol stamping te the Jobsite vi'.h the shipment, unless otherwise specified by the contreet. ] (3) Handles other vessels, components, and equipment items in accordance with the contract require-ments or as directed by the Chief, QEB. W. (4) At the end of the contract or purchase order, w sends the data files to Central QC, Knoxville, for microfilming unless otherwise specified by the contract or instructed by QEB. b. QED-EP 24.I1 This EP was issued on llarch 4, !!)S3, and replaces the TVA Inspection Manual. The procedure is a general instruction on the practice of inplant inspection (source surveillance) by TVA. In section 7.3.7, "Tinni Reports," it is stated that, " Final reports are j normally used to close out a -contract file. The Central QC Staff reviews the file for completion after distribution of the final report." R

k d7 c,ff G..

.' D, h,

' ( lI - u.,.,.7 O O ~ ATTACIDiENT p Page 14 of 44 [ R c. gEp-EP 24.37 Under Section 1.0, " Purpose and Scope," it was stated that "this EP covers the indexing and preparation of ! ]g Product Compliance Data and Quality Engineering Records l produced and received by QEB." Under Section 2.0, h " Policy," It was further stated that "the QEB is g responsible for the storage of Product Compliance Data and Quality Engineering Records during the manufactur-ing stage of contracts set up for inspection." In-cluded in.t'hese responsibilities was the orderly l P trans fer of records from QEB to MEDS for transmittal to NUC PR. g g g In section 4.1, it was stated that the QC Unit Super-visor " accumulates Product Compliance Data and Quality f Engineering Records by project; ensures that the y f data / records are complete and accurate." ,The QC Supervisor was also required to turn,*over-records to I the QEB Records Unit. By this EP, MEDS microfilms the data packages and sends a A copy of the microfilm t.o QEB and to the re-lated plantsite, d. OEB-EP 24.58 In Part 1, " Purpose and Scope," it was stated that "this EP outlines the methods that QEB uses in handl-ing supolier records for TVA contracts requiring s inspection by QER. This EP applies to supplier l records submitted to QEB to furnish proof of com-pliance with the requirements of the contract." j l i The EP also instructed the TVA inspector to prepare a detailed index identifying the number of packages or boxes, what records are contais.ed in each package or box, and to what piece of equipment the records apply. The inspector was then instructed to send the records to Knoxville. The Knoxville unit supervisor was l directed to receive, review, and check the records against the original records checklist. *He was then , instructed to further index the records, if necessary, and c:aintain them until turned over to the QEB Records Unit. 2 Division of Construction (CONST) The CONST Quality Assurance Program for records is set forth in QAPP-17, " Quality Assurance Records," RS, June 30, 1982. Very little guidance is given in this policy state-ment concerning vendor generated QA documentation. g it does, however, state that QA records shall be identifiable i l

. ~ } ATTACHMENT D age 15 of 44 i l' and traceable to the item or activity, they shall be retriev-1 able, and they shall be maintained in a systematic and l controlled manner. I I At Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, SNP Construction Procedure No. h P-8, " Quality Assurance Records," R16, February 18

1983, k

described the manner in which QA records are prepar,ed, reviewed, handled, classified, temporarily stored at the construction site, and transferred to NUC PR. d; In Procedure PaB, Section 6.C.4, "QA Records Originated Offsite," it was stated that "QA records received at the i 5. site which were prepared by vendors or other TVA organiza- {I tions shall be incorporated into the site contract file." This requirement was established in revision 13 dated { -T' h November II, 1977. a In Procedure P-8, Section ~6.0, " Transferring Records to NUC PR," part 2, it was stated that the Quality Control and g Records Unit (QCRU) will arrange for MIDS to microfilm all QA records with manual folder level indexing. Also,' the

d. :

microfilm was to be returned to QCRU for transfer to NUC PR. k E Nonmicrofilmable QA records were to.be transferred to NUC PR 4 in hard copy. In section 6.C.4, it was stated that the transfer of QEB supplier radiographs will be made by EN DES. 3. Management and Engineerine Data Systems (MEDS) The eperations of MEUS was described in their procedure book. In MP 13.01, "Backfile Documents - Processing," RO, March 25, 1981, it was stated that MEDS receives request l from user organizations to film backfile documents. MEDS l-then goes through the mechanics of filming, including a setting of priority nsing attachment 2 (this attachment was not available). After filming, MEDS distributes index and i film to organizations requesting copies. i MP 12.07, " Processing Site-Originated Quality Assurance Records - Sequoyah and Watts Bar Nuclear Plants," RO, March k ; b 4, 1982, described the mechanies for bringing the records from the construction site listed to Knoxville to be filmed. One ' responsibility nf the MEDS user : epresentative was to deliver the index, all illegibles, and the applicable nuinber of copies of microfilm to the site QCRU for transfer to NUC PR. In MP 14.01, " Document Processing - Overview," RO, Ma rch 4, 1981, it stated that for documents processed in the MEDS online system, MEDS received documents from user organiza-tions prepared in accordance with instructions in MEDS Handbook or related EPs, CEPs, and Als. u .h 4 s' 4

f . ATTAClihbPt D g Page 16 of 44 r E. Handling Practices for Vendor-Sn. plied OA Herords p 4 Discussions were held witt members of QEB, MEDS, CONST, a nd HUC PR to ascertain actnal'prartires in the fiow path of vendur i QA records f rom the vendor.o the ultinate u;.er of the cenoditu and ultimate holder of the of fical recaros--huC PR. The I'les of k I' records to SQN wan' chosen because it was i ne newes t optr.it i.onal h nuclear plant in tha TVA system and the last sni,*. had been in g commercial operatf or_ greater than six months, 'hus required by W the TVA Topical Report to have all QA records onsi;e at the (ime 5 of this investigation. Areas covered in the investigr' ion process included accumulatira of records, review for a.ccuracy and completeness, storage, Indexing of cr'ntrset files, and y transmittal of the records. The actual uvies uf randorely, ej i selected completed contracts is described in section. lil.T. f 1. Ouility Engineering Dranch-Av described in sections ill.C. and.D above, the overall handling of vendor QA records has fc.11 owed an evolutlecary proceas. Members of the QEB organization stated trat their files were the of ficial files during the life of to active ec:drset and until the file was transmitted to another s

roup. The branch chief stated that, the QEB files lese their offical states when the files are transmitted tn MEDS ior filming and the fijn his been reviewed by QEB. QEL personnel stated h'UC Ph ti 4 told them th4.t A'UC PR did not know what they wanted or needed in the way of QA records and that b*UC H' did not want and coule not,phyrically store hard copies of QED's resords. Correspondee e on this prob-4 lem was Feneratrd in 1917. Ultic3tely some ^EB contract files were shipped in } {77 in hrrd ce;y to SQN CONST, and I

each file included eve:y docum.nt C"3 had at the time. Apprently no effort was made La elimir.ste non-QA inferrna-tion or dupliention. The problem of what the' required QA documents wot.ld consist of for any given refrm-]dit;' also presented a problem to QEB. Personnel c ated that cont ract spec ;fications, until very recently, were vngue regardig the.equired vendor QA documentation. Tnis vagueness was d scribed as resulting in the regional inspectors having to negotiate with each vendor about what records the vendor s as willlng to suppl /. Theref ore, documenta tion for like corn.dities varied f rom vendor to vendor and may enly include a vendo ce-tificate of compliance or may inciade as much as data package, including certi fica tion c.f cernpliance, mi.'l certi fica tieru, 1 test reports, etc. { There was no practice of routinely t nrsf erring QEr records to CONST, and it appears that QEf records were transferred at only two tic >e periods when they were runnin; out cf ) file space ir QEB t c

• )

t ATTACIDiENT D e o ge 17 of 44' l Pa f In about 197:1 a van (one pcrpon recalled it being a 12-foot moving van) was illled with QEB records for BFH and trane.- r ferred to BFN. In 1977 two shipments of hard copy records were trans f erred to SQN CONST by QEB af ter being filmed by k tIEDS. The QEB Branch Chief said CONST could not physically } accept records before then. Other QED personnel recalled i that they were out of file space and needed to make room. I L They further recalled this was a hurry-up operation requir-(L ing overtinie work, and the files were not reviewed for completeneun. l R One shipment of Mechanical / Nuclear Unit records to SQN g 3 CONST consisted of 27 hoxen (presumed by NSRS to be 1-foot / g per box becaun-this was the mnat common size) containing 2 377 completed contracts. Thene contract filer ranged in size from very small, 116 contracts contained in 3 boxes, to very large, 1 contract contained in 5 boxes. There was r' no documentation of transmittal produced for this shipment; however, SQN CONST had a' copy of the index produced for the transfer with written-Jn file drawer 1 locations. Another shipment was made on October 19, 1977, fromithe design project manager to the SQN Project Manager. This shipment ecnuisted of 28 boxes containing 348 contracts. As 4 with the previcus shipment, QEB stated all files were . filmed by tiEDS before shipment. Copics of the film were possessed by tiEUS and QEB and NUC PR Central Office. Indexing for these films was manual, not in the ?EDS data base, and included the contract number, vender name, and a very general description of the commodity. SQN CONST had ne rect,rd of thic shipment but found the recorde, associated with these t rans f ers.if ter the NSRS inquired about their disposition. It was believed by CONST that the first shipment was incurporated into the CONST filen developed fur the same contracts, but they later determined that the records were not incorporated, h G A similar transfer was made to BLN in 1977. No record of any t ransfer of QF.H records to WBN could be found. There was no recorded transfer of QEll records to SQN since 1977; l .however, both QEB nnd SQN CONST personnel remember that i several boxes of rentract filen were sent by QEB to CONST p in the 1979-80 time period and returned beenbue CONST said g they did not know what to do with them. k QEB maintains n enrd file on cont racts requiring QEB source h inspection issued since about 1965. On these cards such l information is maintained as contreet number, vendor, g responsible unit nupervisor, whether the contract is active s or complete, and i f the records file has been transferred. { QEB also maintained a computerized data base on all active pq contracts from which completed contracts were removed siter the contract has 1:cen completed Ibr about three monthr:. 4 t 5

L J w K~~ 'A ATTACIDiENT D P O O age 18 of 44' ~ There was no list uther than the card file for completed contracts. QEB is presently ihveloping such a list. As ~ such, it would be extremely difficult to identify all completed contracts for a xiveu plant. Only one unit h supervisor, Instrumentation, maintained such a list, Comparing his list of contracts, which also contained disposition of; record inf ormation, against the list of g records sent te SQN in 1977 revealed several interesting points. Of the 24R completed contracts listed by the unit nupervisor, only 172 or 69 percent have been sent to CONST. Of those contract files still in QEB's possession, some had been reopened, which was connon practice to avoid issuing a new contract, but the records for the commodities produced under the contract first issuance remained as well. Within the six boxes of the Instrumentation Unit's records sent in 1977, one contract--76K52-820187-4--with Standard Pipe & Supply Company was shown on the QEB index'sent with the records. f' This was not a contract on the Instrumentation Unit supervisor's list nor.was it on the QEB li.ste of filmed SQN records. SQN CONST could not the other QEB recorde.. find tha,'t; contract with N Comparing the list of filmed contracts for SQN against the QEB list of transferred contract files revealed that four contracts were not filmed, contrary to QEB's belief (73C55-83535-5, 74C56-83612-8, 73C35-83571-2, 74C57-85443). Another discrepancy found was that the contents of boxes 21 and 28 shipped on October IB, 1977, had identical contents. l Of the records sent by the Mechanical / Nuclear Unit in 1977, there are several discrepancies which appear to be typo-graphical errors between the listed contract numbers on the hard copy sent to SQN and the filmed list. Of more signi-i ficance, two boxes of records (boxes I and 2 standard com-l ponents) believed to be shippe<l by the unit supervisor had not been filmed and could not he found by SQN CONST. An additional four contracts on the list of contracts sent i i were not on'the list of filmed contracts (74C56-83612-8, 74C54-83635-6, 74C54-83635-8, 74P63-14703). These dis-crepancies were communicated to the QEB Branch Chief for I his action. ( The Chief, QED, said they would Jike to turn 'over completed files to MEDS for their filming and distribution three j months af ter a contract was completed. Ne further stated that tiEDS could not keep up with the volume of QEB records. ( A completed contract to QEB meant all the compcnents required i on a contract had been shipped from the vendor's site and i did not necessarily mean that TVA had all the papersork, t in the past it was QEB's responsibility to transfer their records to CONST and the branch chief delegated that respon-sibility to his unit supervisors. In the opinion of the Field Operations Supervisor, QEB Joes not have to maintain i '4-

a. I O~ . ATTACIDiENT D ~ P O age 19 of 44 their records in an indexed or easily retrievable manner Indexi6g and organization for retrievability is required only when the records are transferred to t1EDS. With regard to radiographic (RT) film produced by the vendors during their tests, QEB stated they do not want to handle it because they don't have the storage facilities for those kind of records. RT film until asked for or send it with the equipment.The vendor general, QEB pers,onnel were unclear as to the dispositionIn of RT film and when, how, or if TVA received possession of it. Of the contracts reviewed by NSRS, the contr'act lan-guage regarding RT film was equally vague. stated that at the completion of the contractIt specifically the film became the property of TVA, but did not specify how or if TVA would take possession. r' Mechanical / Nuclear Unit a. This unit consists of a unit supervisor and an SD and an SE responsible for all NSSS and mechanical contracts. For the NSSS contracts the vendor is responsible for collecting all QA records and turning them over to TVA at some predesignated time. g With the TVA direct contracts under this unit, a the vendor QA records are (1) maintained by the vendor i until told to release them, or (2) collected and maintained by the regional office until the Knoxville QEB office requests they be sent in, or (3) period-itally sent by the regional office to Knoxville. Because of the vagueness in consensus standards and contract specifications regarding regt' ired QA docum mentation, the unit supervisor stated it was difficult g to have any consistency in records. ] Skid-mounted equipment, for example, was described as having no governing cunsensus standard, and considerable negot2-y j ation by the regional inspector was required to estab-g lish what QA documents the vendor was willing to ( produce. In some cases this could result in an in-j crease in the contract cost. d { The unit supervisor stated he relieJ hea ily upon the regional inspector and his ability to verify that the g commodity met contract spetifications and that the documentation was complete and accurate. Hanpower within this unit _ss described as insufficient to adeguately review the QA records as they arrive; spot g checking is the best they could do. He stated that g i some one-of-a-kind records are maintained by the g vendors until asked for, W but was unable to specify how y the TVA request for these records would come about. l ,w,-w-w',- ' ~ ~ - - - ' - - - - - - - ^ ^ - - "

f .Ir~ TY b s ~~ ATTACIDiENT D P e 9 age 20 of 44 g i The supervisor stated that approximately 4 200-300 active contracts wer' Furthermore, approximately 140 feetebeingadminis3eredbyhisuf; of records on completed contracts C in a two-hour fire-rated room at QEB.for that unit w boxes The boxes were stacked on top of each other with a contract number on the outside, visor that approximately four man years would beit was e required to go through his completed files, them, and put them in order. review With regard to the 1977 shipment of records to SQN the supervisor recalls it was done very rapidly and that he personally took a van load down to SQN CONST E. No emphasis was placed upon reviewing them for accu-M racy or putting the records in some logical order. They were indexed only to the contract or file level A copy of the index was' supplied to the investigators. ,r The supervisor believed that the records _' vere complete but could not be certain. Records from his group were to be transferred when a ~ contract was complete to the QEB Records Unit for S filming and transmittal to CONST. He said that the Records Unit was not able to keep up with the records and the unit supervisors were told to hold on to their records. b. Civil / Architectural Unit This unit consists of a supervisor and two technical staff members recponsible for administration of con-tra cts for commodities which correspond to what title implies. their As with the Mechanical / Nuclear Unit, concensus standards and contract specification were described as vague in sorne areas regarding required j vendor QA documentation. This results in negotiations g with vendors regarding the QA documents they will supply. For some contracts administered by this unit, bulk quantities of structural steel, piping, documentation and mill certifications we,etc., the QA the cor:rnodity to CONST st the site, and QEB did not re sent with receive a copy. For other vendor produced commodi-ties,.QEli received the QA documentation from the regional inspector. vided by the vendor, then aIf more than one copy "as pro-with the commodity, copy was sent to the site d For SQN, however, the unit supervisor stated that only QEB received the QA documentation; the site did not. This unit tor for assuring the QA documentation issupervisor relies upon correct. As 4

- :- [ ** ' _. fp.['[.U _ J ' % *.'j. I i .? ,..v ,t O ATTACIDiENT D O ge 21 of 44 Pa r \\ the contract is filed until the the contract is complete.informatio d it h They Records Unit when they could receive them.were r visor stated that they were approaching 100 percentThe super-1 l review of all files sent to the QE3 Records Unit. e However, he said the Records Unit had a backlog of records and none had been sent in about a year, \\. Currently he estimated that his unit had between h 3 200-200 feet and the regional offices had aboutof completed file records in j 200-300 feet to be shipped to QED in Knoxville. He estimated three to four man years of work would be required to review and ,I index the files he currently has before sending them f to the Records Unit. He said the Records Unit "unfor-F tunately" is indexing the files they currently have and dosen't believe they., have had sufficient guidance r do it properly. I t 'g He stated that he would like to review the film MEDS B makes but that was the Record Unit's job. This supervisor stated he sent some records, he could M not remember which ones for sure, to SQN CONST in about 1979 or 1980 but they were returned. I There was no record of transmittal found by QEB. e. h'eldcents Unit H This unit, under the direction of a t

engineer, supervisor and one fabrication of large components. administered contracts involv This unit was created of both the ?!echanical/ Nuclear and Civil / Architectural j out Units and was not in existence in 1977.

i With regard to QA records, this unit required one copy i of the vendor data package to be r. hipped with the coenodity and required the offical QEB copy to be maintained by the regional office. Approximately three months af ter the rempletion of a contract, i i the Veldments I Unit Supervisor would request the records be sent from j the region to Knoxville. Reviewing his unit's list of , completed contracts for SQN revealed one completed for over a year that had not been called in. I [ Prior to a record shipment, the region was to index i the file. According to the unit supervisor, additional M indexing was performed in Knoxville by QEB and finally MEDS. He further stated intelligence was prepared for files describing the filing system to sid retrievability.

Q*.T .,,- :rn w ~~- e bg ATTACmiENT D Page 22 of 44 ~ Reviewing the recently cornpleted file on the Bellefonte containment, filling five cabinet drawings, transferred to the Records Unit; it took about three hours to track down the pe.ilgree of a component for the polar crane using the combined talent of the person indexing the file, the unit supervisor, and by telephone the TVA resident inspector at the vendor's site. d. Instrumentation Unit This unit,, under a supervisor and one engineer, admin-isters contracts for instrumentation requiring source inspection. This was the only unit that maintained a working document listing all contracts handled by the unit including the dispoaltion of the contracts' y records. g Unlike the previous three units, the Instrumentation [ Unit contracts were described as more specific regard-( ing the required QA documentation. This unit required the QA documentation to be sent to the site with the g comodity and to QEB Knoxville as it was generated, g The documentation was reviewed for completeness in g Knoxville, but not technical accuracy. The regional g inspector was relied upon to provide the technical ~( j revieu necessary to assure a quality product. The j regional office also maintained files on the contracts i and was considered the duplicate file for this unit. This unit had some contracts previously completed that were reopened to purchase additional equipment. In those cases the documentation for the previously h completed portion remained a part of the contract af file. Q The unit supervisor stated that the Q:B Record Unit P was unable to accept any records for the last two h years so they had been building up in his files. He also stated that the Records Unit clerks, for the most part, do the contract indexing. c. Electrical Unit This unit, under a supervisor and two ' engineers, k administers contracts requiring source inspection i 'g under their purview. According to the unit supervi-sor, like the Instrumentation Unit contracts, the specifications in contracts regarding QA records are f adequate. l1 Regarding QA records, this unit supervisor required the regional inspector to review them for completeness and accuracy. When natisfied, the regional inupector l .l would send eight copies to DEB Knoxville where they t .I .se.

ey F g ATTACH.*iENT D age 22 of 44 ~ Reviewing the recently completed file on the Bellefonte con t a irusen t, filling (f ve cabinet drawings, transferred to the Records Unit; it took about three hours to track down the pedigree of a component for the polar y I crane using the combined talent of the person indexing the file, the unit supervisor, and by telephone the TVA resident inspector at the vendor's site. d. Instrumentation Unit This unit,.. under a supervisor and one engineer, admin-isters contracts for instrumentation requiring source e inspection. This was the only unit that maintained a working document listing all contracts handled by the j unit including the dispoaltion of the contracts' records. O ~ ~ Unlike the previous three units, the Instrumentation f P [ Unit contracts were described as more specific regard-l ing the required QA documentation. This unit required the QA documentation to be sent to the site with the g comodity and to QEB Knoxville as it was generated. g The documentation was reviewed for completeness in g g Knoxville, but not technical a ccura cy. The regional inspector was relied upon to provide the technical g ^ review necessary to assure.a quality product. The { regional office also maintained files on the contracts and was considered the duplicate file for this unit. { t This unit had some contracts previously completed that ! f were reopened to purchase additional equipment. In those cases the documentation for the previously h. completed portion remained a part cf the contract file. a [ P The unit supervisor statedithat the QCB Record Unit was unable to accept any records for the last two years so they had been building up in his files. He also stated that the Records Unit clerks, for the most g part, do the contract indexing. l e. Electrical Unit 9 7 This unit, under a supervisor and two engineers, j l - administers contracts requiring source inspection j under their purview. According to the unit supervi-sor, like the Instrumentation Unit contracts, the specifications in contracts regarding QA records are ) adequate. 1 l i hegarding QA records, this unit supervisor required the regional inspector to review them for completeness s and accuracy. When natisfied, the regional inupector l l would send eight copies to QEB Knoxville where they { 'I l ~ l .to.

$s'.% ? Y'. 0h were reviewed again for completeness and accuracy. ' I When satistled, the Electrical Unit Supervisor would then send seven ropies of the QA records to the techni-cal engineer for review, approval, and distribution. g s Thlw unit supervisor expressed concern regarding the transfer of his records to the Records Unit. lie felt t they were not capable of adequately handling them, lie further stated he had never sent any records to the b; Records Unit and was reluctant to do so, but in about 3 3 1979, seven feet of SQN and seven feet of VBN records were taken from him and sent to the Records Unit. s W QEB had recognir.ed that a problem existed with their records .k and a number of actiuns and program changes had begun. The inspection load of the regional offices had decreased and g those personnel were being used to review files for com- [$ g pleteness. A recent procedural change to procurement gi g specifications will require ^ future vendors to supply a list - g of QA documents they will provide to show' compliance with the contract specifications. QEB was also developing a g list of all contracts they hed handled since 1965, includ-ing the disposition of the contract and location of the M contract file. A data base for QEB records had been devel-oped and was in the testing and evaluation stagen. 2. HE_Dj A discussion was held with the MEDS Branch Chief reEarding the role of MEDS in QEB records. He stated that once the records were filmed and indexed (for either coeputer sided or etanual retrieval) by MEDS, they became the officiai documents. He maid that for QEB and CONST QA records, MEDS performs the filming and QEB and CONST were responsible 'or distribution of the film to NUC PR. lie stated that con-l siderable ef furt had been expended in developing a data g base for QA records which could be queried on the document level. This system would include both QEB and CONST records. h Vhen asked if NUC PR would have access to this, he stated l N that POWER in Chattanoogn had a MEDS terminal and could use f M it if they wnnted to, but their experience had been that HUC PR did not want MEDS material because it was not in a [ form that NUC PR could'use. lie also expressed the position that MEDS was ~ inr OEDC not POWER, and MEDS would not put the records in a form NUC PH would like. The branch chief stated that.the new data base would be used on currently produced QA records and older QA records would be added time permitted, probably taking several years. as With regard to a quention on duplication of records, a i task force was identified by the branch chief which was review-ing records produced by OEDC and specifying on a specific basis which groups of records were'to be retained and which l .~. e,

1 .,,_ _ wat '['.~ . ' i, ATTICHMENTD Page 24 of 44' ~ O e were to be discarded. SQN CONST and QEB were reviewed and no effortCopics of t duplication between the two nets of records to reduce The task force that reviewed CONST records could be found. did not have a the retained CONST records. representative from HUC PR, the divj NUC PR did review the task force report and determined there were records scheduled

l f

for destruction that NUC PR wanted to retain. ] NUC PR requested that they be included in the transfers and they were. ( k i Interviews were. held with the QEB HEDS representative. The ) representative stated that MEDS would index completed con-tract files to the package level. In doing so MEDS would look for any obvious errors and, if found, would send the file back to QEB for correction. A rough estimate of the MEDS workload in QEB for all' QED-inspected contracts was made by the representative as follows: .r Completed contracts in QEB Records Un'it T' a. 3 l 150 ft b. Completed contracts in QEB Materials f'n Engineer possession 3 520 IL 3 Open contracts in Materials Engineer c. N possession 3 345 ft U { The MEDS representative assumed one cubic foot of files would fill a 2300 image roll of film, and two cubic feet of g records per week could be made camera ready by the three ',as MEDS clerical persons in the Records Unit. Using these assumptions, 19 person years for MEDS Records Unit person-nel alone could be expended on currently completed records. ~ This does not include the files held by the regional offiets that are not duplicates of QEB Knoxville file material or i records found in QEB files previously sent to the TVA records center which require filming. l Discussions with QEB Records Unit clerFs revealed that i they had been expected to index and organize completed yi contracts without sufficient guidance. They stated that E they were just expected to know how to index. Consequently, they did the best they could. One clerical person attempted to document a procedure for indexing. This was the only i guidance, described by them, they had to work with. l 3. Division of Construction - Seguoyah Nuclear Plant in addition to CONST generated QA records involving CONST { activities at SQN, large quantities of vendor generated and TVA-related QA documentation is accumulated. t Vendor gener-j sted documentation includes that which is provided as a Q part of contrnets requiring QEB r.ource inspection. CONST j personnel interviewed indicated that they believed their } records were complete and QEB rechrds only duplicated what i 1

..,....m. mane i, ATTAC10iENT D Page 25 of 44 l O O \\, they had. personnel recalled that y records. arrived one day (in the several boxes of QEll 1979-1980 time period), and glancing through the recorda and saw duplication nf thosePersonne i h ( they did not know what to do with them. j N" i records CONST had already. They indicated it would be a large effort to try to incorporate the two sets of records { ! and since they saw no value in doing so, chnse not to. g I CONST ultimately sent the records back to QEB in Knoxville n E 3 9 Questions about records shipped to them in 1977 from QED with CONST QA records were notproduced some consternation involved in the 1977 records transfer. Documentation was produced which indicated the QEB undocumented shipment of records by the Mechanical / Nuclear Unit Supervisor in 1977 had been received and persumed incorporated into the CONST files. This was arrived at by CONST from the fact that file drawer numbers were written next ( CONST was to each '_ex on the index supplied by QEB. film of CONST QA records, informed that based upon the NSRS r had been incorporated into the CONST files.it did not appear;that QEB rec he found of the forma! October 1977 shipment from Pierce tono record g Stack. NSRS provided CONST with a copy of the transmittal and index. A few days later, CONST informed NSRS that QED I records shipped in 1977 were found still in file cabinets in another building. Reviewing what was found against the I indexes, CONST determined that two boxes were mssing. informed QEB of this discrepancy for their action. 7 NSRS L A large portion of the CONST QA records had been filmed . (over 200 rells nf film) and the film given to NUC PR ut r 7 SQN. CONST stated they did not have a machine to review 3 p i the film produced by MEDS and, therefore, did not know the film was if complete or readable. CONST just gave t.he film to NUC PR. CONE'a informed NSRS, based upon their use of the film for SQN unitfilm at SQN NUC PR, that about 80 percent of the i original records had been destroyed.CONST records was illegible a j i in a disenssion with the CONST Material Inspecti l I l (MIG) Supervisor, he stated that each piece supplied under %o on Grnup = contract requiring source inspection is inspected against l 3 contract speci fica tions, including the presenc'e of required jj vendor and QEli documentatinn. If the vendor documentation g or QEB release for shipment form is not present, the com-( modity is rejected unless QEll verbally authorized its l acceptance by telephone. t The CONST QA records clerk stated that vendors sometimes glt put manufacturing and test data plied. These manualr. were given in equipment manuals sup-NUC PR in hard copy; they were n,otaccording to CONST, in SQN filmed. / i s' w W. .n. A

.....,.,.m.~ ..-e< ^~ b.Y: E*l ATTACHMENT D Page M of M With regard to vendor radiographie (RT) film, CONST stated they had not seen any film rume onsite in years. CONST stated they recieved shout two boxes of Chicagn Bridge and Iron RT film for the containment i from QEB and it was not indexed. 4 l Division of Nuclear Power - Sc3uoyah Nuclesr Pinnt _r_ In discussions with SQN NUC PR personnel, they stated that they received QA records on film from CONST and document control had custody of it. The filmed records received i admittedly were not reviewed for accurac by any of the QA or engineering groups. y or completeness They were reviewed y only for readability by document control. i Personnel at SQN NUC PR stated they did not know what should be in the QA . records they receive. i They further stated that they had a difficult time finding anything in them and generally LOhST i I. personnel were requested te go through the film to find f something for NUC PR. A manual index in loose-leaf form was provided with the film. icider level, i.e., contract number only.The indexing' leve on t.he The largest contract observed by NSRS was contained on 13 j rolls of film generally indexed to the contract number and g some other unidentified lower-tiered number. q ti p Tilm vos stored by document control in two locations--the d.i d vault and in the document control file area in the adminis-t ration building. The offical files were considered to be g the film and any unfilmable hard copies from the reccrds filmed and any other hard copy records were considered to be duplication. Test records not found in any other file g system at QEB CONST or NUC PR uere found in what was con-y sidered the duplicate hard copy file at SQN. El Vendor manuals transferred by CONST to NUC PR a re con-offical vendor manunl was supplied by che NUC PR Cent.ral g% sidered by SQN NUC PR to be for information only. The

Office,

[ ,t Vendor RT film r.eceived by document control was sent to the k U. S. Government Record Center in East Point, GA.

Records, generally by system or component, were maintained by docu-g g ment control specifying what RT film had been sent to g

storage. The list was quite smell and included only main coolant components. Construction produced RT film was stored in the NUC PR and . A h CONST vault.s. j ( T. Randomly Selected Contract File Floy ( Methodolory j [ After studying the operations of QEU, it was decided that since ,1 NUC PR was the uit imate user of vendor generated QA records, a - - - - - - =

^ ATTACHMENT D Page 27 of 44 + \\ g@, verification of records actually under the control of NUC PR would be performed. In order to do this, SQN was selected as j the NUC PR facility on which to perform the record check. First, contract file records were selected at the QEB office in Knoxville for review. The contracts were selected to be repre-sentative of each section in QEB. Fifteen contracts were selected in' total. After their review in Knoxville, the files for the same contracts were reviewed in SQN NUC PR and were then reviewed in SQN CONST. A comparison of each contract file was made to ) ensure that the inforniation required to be generated and trans-mitted by the vendor was actually going through TVA's prescribed g routing to NUC l'R. In general, contract files were found in h varying degrees of completeness with no generni organi ntional style and with portions of files in multiple locations. More complete files were found in the possession of QEB Knoxville, I but again in multiple locations. Specifically within QEH com- 'j g pleted files were found in hard. copy in the possesion of the unit supervisors, in a two-hour fire-rated room, in the QEB Records Unit files, in the Chicago Regional Of fice files held by g the QEB Records Unit and segregated from the Knoxville QEB, g g files, and in microfilm in the QEB Records Unit. Portions of the same completed contract were found both in hard copy and in g microfilm, which had been made in 1977, in the QEB Records Unit. g At SQN CONST the hard copy files previously tranferred by QEB were found stored in hard copy in a location different than where CONST maintained their vendor QA records. All but about six file cabinets of CONST vendor QA records had been micro-filmed and given to NUC PR. NUC PR had CONST file on file and had hard copy files for i vendor contracts which h'UC PR believed to be duplicate records, i k NSRS determined, however, that HUC PR's hard copy file, in fact, had information not found in any otiser file. 4 Host, but not a.ll, of the filec in QEB's pcssession appeared complete. Microfilmed filen at HUC PR and, therefore, CONST were incomplete. Had the QED files in CONST's possession been incorporated into the CONST files, NUC PR would have what would appear to be complete files for mnst of the contrnets reviewed. This would exclude, of course, those contracts wher.e Q:D only shipped portions of the completed contract file. I None of the files in the various locations followed a set style of orpenization. Some were found in reverse chronological order, some by items produced, some by category of information (cor-respondence, tests, etc.), some with a combination of the above styles, and some in no logical order. i Each fil. contained what was considered to be superfluous infor-l mation,.uch as multiple copics of contrpets and attachments and multiple copies of correspondence and irreltva..t correspondence. \\ [

f. + ATTiCmiENT D Page 28 of 44 - O O Microfilmed ffles contained the same multipticitles and aIso included. machine copies of text pat terns, envelopes, and blank pages. No information was found in any contract file reviewed that the file had ever been reviewed for completeness and no index was found adequate enough to allow someone looking for information to find it without going through the complete file. In fact, the retrieval of specific information from one large ' file that had been indexed to a greater extent than most required three hours of coordinated effort by the Knoxville QEB indexer, the unit supervisor, and the site inspector via telephone. The following is a listing of the contracts reviewed. Addi-tional information can be found in the review sunrnary for each in attacreent 2. ~ contract HSSS/ Mechanical Section 1. I Atmospheric Relief Valves '92697 2. Auxiliary Control Air Dryers - 83630-1 3. Auxiliary Control Air Dryers, Dewpoint Alarm,- 83630-2 4 Vertical Turbine Pumping Units - 92609 5. Steam Generator Safety Valves - 92696 Civil Structural

6.,1ce Condenser Scala - E2064 7.

Ice Condenser Hinge Blocks - 823844 8. Aluminum and Stainless Steel Honeycombed Cushions - 820345 9. Missile Doors for Air Conditioning Enclosure - 67262 10. Reactor Supports - 75018 Instrumentation I 11. Spare Diesel Generator and Exciter, Voltage Regulator - l B25204 3 12. Level Switches - E3530-1 l Electrical 13. 6900-Volt Switchgear and Transf ormers - 54495 480-Volt Switchgear and Transformer - 54523 7 14 Veldments 15. Accumula tors, Pumps, CVCS - 826301 p Also, the Bellefonte containment contract (weldments) was reviewed in the Knoxville QEB office, specifically for retrievability of data. i 0a Iu

~ b" ".~e S-h TT1CIDiENT D A Page 28 of 44 i h Microfilmed files contained the same-multiplicities and also included machine copies of test pat terns, envelopes, and blank pages. No information was found in any contract file reviewed that the file had ever been reviewed for completeness and no index was found adequate enough to allow someone looking for information to find it without going through the complete file. In fact, the retrieval of specific information f rom one large , file that had been indexed to a greater extent than most required three hours of coordinated effort by the Knoxville QEB iodexer, the unit supervisor, and the site inspector via telephone. g The following is a' listing of the contracts reviewed. Addt-tional information can be found in the review sumary for each . contract in attachment 2. NSSS/Hechanical Section 1. I Atmospheric Relief Valves '92697 2. Auxiliary Control Air Dryers - 83630-1 3. Auxiliary Control Air Dryers, Dewpoint Alarm - 83630-2 4. Vertical Turbine Pumping Units - 92609 5. Steam Generator Safety Valves - 92696 Civil Structural i 6. Ice Condenser Scals - 82064 l 7. Ice Condenser liinge Blocks - $23844 8. l Aluminum and Stainless Steel Honeycembed Cushions - 820345 ~ 9. Missile Doors for Air Conditioning Enclosure - 87262 ( 10. Reactor Supports - 75018 J Instrumentation k R 11. Spare Diesel Generator and Exciter, Voltage Regulator - U 825204 [) 12. Level Switches - 83530-1 I Electrical 1 W 13. 6900-Volt Switchgea r and Transf ormers - 54495 l 14 480-Volt Switchgear and Transformer - $4523 f i + Veldments i f

15. Accun:ulators, Pumps, CVCS - 826301 i

g Also, the Bellefonte containment contract (weldments) was reviewed in the Knoxville QEB office, specifically for retrievability of , data. l [ l l ! 1 l I l -M-

• l'

\\ ATTACH}iENT D Page 29 of 44 O O IV. ANALYSIS 1)uring the investigation of QED rernedn, investigation must it became apparent that the with the records both before and after QEB. include to some extent activ It was believed that the [ ultimate disposition of vendor-supplied quality records and their usability to TVA needed to be addressed in total before a proper j evaluation and corrective action, il necessary, could be specifled. j Along these lines the analysis has hern broken down into four sub-f sections addressing: t SQN, (2) the usability of records (1) the availability of complete records at [ g of TVA's record system to satisfy NRC requirements, and (4) thereceived b q safety significance of QA records. Although this D report centers almost entirely upon the flow of records k to and at SQN, there is no indication that these findings would not h ntno apply to other TVA nuclear facilities. h A. Availability of fiomplete I:ecordg nt SQN Reviewing NRC regulations contained in r 10CFR50, Appendix,B, and f TVA's Topical Report implementing those regulations, it becomes very clear that all QA documentntion confirming that materials y and equipment at SQN met purchase specifications should now be onsite. The regulations and TVA'n implementation specifically ) state onsite--not the central ol' lice, not the vendor's plant, but onsite. g! From discussions with QEB personnel and in reviewing their records, h it was established that SQN did not have all the records required. The only shipment of QEB records was made in 1977 and QEB still had several hundred cuble feet of records for SQN and other nuclear plants.in Knoxville and an undetermined amount in the regional offices. For the most part, QEH did not know how many completed contracts it had for SQH. QEll pointed out that the sites did not 'want the records in hard copy because they did not have room for .them. Both QEB and NUC PR stated that N'IC TR did net know what records they wanted. Each organization--QEB, CONST, HEI)S--sppeared very protective of their own records and needs. Ql.!! had their records in a form they wanted and believed their rernrds were the of ficial TVA vendor QA records. With regard to form, there were five separate units within QEB and records were maintained in five different styles and levels of completenenn. CONST, likewise, believed their records were more remplete than QEll's and were in a i form usable to them. CONST viewed QUn records as duplicaten and unneceusary. Theref ore, QEll records were either stored in . separate file cabinets or returned to QEB and not incorporated into CONST files as their procedure required. ?!EDS was unwilling { t to put records in a form HUC PR could use because they were OEDC's records management group, not to filra records as eupplied and index theI W EH's, They, therefore, nrranged film on a file level I .m - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - " - ~ ' - ~ ' - ' - ~

k ATTACHMENT D h* B e

• 1 **

e e depending on how the file was arranged by the group having it filmed. NUC PR on the receiving end est these records was taking whatever anyone wanted to give them and hoped no one would ask for the records again. Not knowing what NUC PR wanted, both QEH and CONST took the conservative approach and filmed everything they had in a ' contract file, including multiple copies of the contract and attachments. This was inagnified by itEDS filming machine copied test patterns and blank pages because they were in the file. The results of thin mass filming was a considerable amount of duplication between QED and CONST. I CONST had no capability of reviewing film produced by MEDS and Just forwarded the film to NUC PR. CONST stated that through their use of the film in NUC PR possession, they estimate that 80 percent of the CONST generated QA records are unreadable and the hard copy has been destroyed. T' Since QEB did not review the files for completeness prior to shipment in 1977, no one in QEB knows for sure.whether or not the recorda were complete. Errors were found in the 1977 docu-l mentation by NSRS which showed that QED did not review what they On thought they were sending SQN CONST cither at the time of ship-ment or af ter the reported hectic time of assembling and trans- {]g mitting those records. It appeared from discussions with QEB, [ j CONST, HEDS, and SQN NUC FR that each was' unaware of the others required input or the needs of the records recipient. It appears i j that the general attitude was that thh QA records are required to l be stored onsite; therefore, send the records and don't worry about l their usable value to the recipient. j i i I Considering TVA's assignment of responsibilities, both EN DES l and CONST are responsibic for providing documentation of the } satisfactory design and construction of a nuclear power plant [, to the user (NUC FR). Included in this documentation are .y ; drawings, maintenance manuals, quality records, etc. N ' If the sources of quality records associated with a piece of equipment were identified they would fall into three general 8 I Those associated with quality in manufacturing, installa-d areas. tion, and maintenance. Two thirds of these records are to be if supplied by EN DES and CONST. With those QA records and the QA records produced during maintenance, NUC PH is required and should [g j be able to retrieve records thewing the pedigree of a piece of (q equipment in a reasonable length of tJme. 6 r i i i During the investigation QEB stated that NUC PR would not specify what they wanted for QA records. It can be effectively argued { that NUC.PR should not have to specify what is needed. Based upon the regulatory rquirements, the onelte required QA docu-eentation la to show that a piece of equipment meets the con-lq tract specifications. EN DES prepares the specifications, h inspects the manuf acturing process, and collects the documenta-tion proving to TVA's satis f action that the specifica tions have _ _ _.. -. - - - - - ~

..'.'f. ATTACIDiENT D Page 31 of 44 i q O O' been met. It follows then, that EN DES should he in the best I position to decide what records one needed to prove the cont ract q 3 specifications have been met, not HUC pR. [ could be developed for CONST. A similar argument \\ 1 $p The monetary value placed upon these vendor produced QA documents! is large. The QEB Branch Chief placed an additional 64 percent on the cost of the manuf acturing process to produce a commodity h"I i i seceptable for a nuclear power plant. Af ter the TVA regional 4, I inspector assures himself that a commodity does, in fact, meet L f the contract specifications and releases that commodity for shipment to a site, the only archival proof TVA will have that 3 shows proper quality will be the QA documentation on that com- [ modity. Therefore, the Justifiestion that the additional 64 percent was well spent, preventing the possible shutdown as a b unit or the replacement of equipment, rests upon the documenta-( tion QEB collects and its usability ~by the ultimate p j record holder. T Considering the two billion dollars in contracts QEB was inspect-ing in 1980, the value of the QA documents collected by QEB was about 780 million dollnrs, most of which was nuclear related. Most QEB personnel did not know whether or not the required documentation was available and retrievable. 5 They all believed it was, but most did not have a method of verifying that belief. In the specific case of RT film, QEB did not know nor did the reviewed contracts show where that film was located. For the most part, it was believed to be at the vendor's facility. Returning to why the records were not in the possession of SQH HUC PR, the investigatnrn determined that each responsible organi-ration had an explanallen. QEU pointed out that ifEDS could not handle the quanity of records QEB had. CONST pointed out they had no room for the QED hnrd copy records and believed them to be i ( only duplicates of what they already had. t1EDS pointed cut that l filming old records was a low prior!'y and they unuld not put them in a form usable tn the site. There certainly was validity In each position, but it was evident also, that each was concerned l more with their own problems than with what was required by TVA. s Each was aware of the problem of getting records to the sites, but [ there was no identified effort toward solving the problem and p providing the site with OEDC QA records as required and committed I i by TVA. g Another aspect of this whole process involves manpower and whether or not it was adequate to perform the assigned tasks. [ g Sufficient time was not spent in this area to provide a complete i evaluation; however, some observations are worth noting. Both i the Instrumentation and Electrical Units administer contracts that are relatively small in size. The degree to which these i contract files were organized and their relative appearance of completeness indicated that their nonpower was adequate. On the other hand, contracts administered by the Mechanical / Nuclear and Civil / Architectural Units were in some c*ases very massive in nize and complexity. These two units had the added problem of I

~ e .e less specific specifications. work over what the Instrumentation und Electrical UnitsIloth f acturs r would be expected to experience. the units were basically the same.Yet the number of personnel in each of Bnth the Mechanical and Civil Units expressed difficulty keeping up with contracts regarding whether or not the paperwork was completed. It is 'not known if this was by personal preference, not a related to workload, or out of necessity. In either case, no information was offered which indicated that either unit staffed. felt it was under by the branch chief that evaluated the unitSimilarly, no mechanism w t supervisors' work with regard to how well the paperwork was handled. Such an evaluation might be appropriate since paperwork is a very i important part of QEB's final product. The Weldments Unit did not maintain running files for their contracts; the regional office did. Periodically, about three months af ter the contract l was complete, files were called in from the regional offices. The one file it had on flellefonte containment was very large -g p and appeared complete, but was extremely difficult for someone g } not entirely familiar with it to use. The inadequate indexing j s and descriptive intelligence on the i j may not be related to staff size, file information may or, i, d Although problems with QEB's records appeared well known by all I within QEB, little effort appeared to be expended at identifying h i and solving the problem of providing the sites complete and r I h usable QA records. Efforts were start,ed and described during I, ! this investigation to put QEB records in order, but none were M described tc improve the flow of records to NUC PR or their f usability to them. Even if QEB's records were in order, and if - t CONST followed its demunstrated practices, the QEB records would f I either be stored in separa*.e filing cabinets or sent back to ( With UUC PR receiving only CONST records, the records were f 'r QEB. i incomplete and could not be used to prove that contract speciff- ' q h cations for equipment. had been met. Furthermore, the need for CONST personnel to find information for NUC PR in microfilmed i .ecords are no;; usable to NUC PR. h records indicates that the I g Ansuming the regional inspectors were performing their function, 1 and there was no reason to suspect otherwise, at the time equip-ment was shipped by the vendor QA documentation existed. Therefore, between the recurds stored by NUC PR SQN, CONST SQN, and QED records at SQN, Knoxville and the regional of fices and records passed by the vendor or subveniors, the QA records shnuld exist. The data at the vendor's facility becomes important in those cases where TVA does not have all the required QA data. Of the contracts reviewed 4 out of 16 appeared incom-plete, lacking test data and therefore fell into that category (87226, 83630-2, 824204, 83530-l). l Ef f orts were started by QED during this investigation to develop an index of all contracts requiring QEB. source inspection since 1965 and including, among other things, records disposition. a .>n. eI8 dic

. p-, ~ ~. w ' ATTACIDiENT D Page JJ ot " e 9 Efforts were made to develop the program for a data base for QEB records. It was described as being capable of retrieving infor-g arstion on a document level and would include such things as heat s numbers and serial numbers. This system is not operational yet, h and only has some test data in it. Supposedly, it will also p' have CONST QA records entered into it. This type of system was needed badly; however, it is not yet the solution to the problem and if it is not handled properly, will add to the problem. The program was developed without input f rom the QEB unit supervi- _[ sors and without NUC pH input. Granted the program was devel-t oped under a task force with NUC PR representation, but that jr I, representative stated he had no input. It appears that at g present it will be Just a QEB tool. With regard to NUC PH access to the data base, the only ?!EDS terminal in POWER is in the Central Office. The sites do not have a terminal. Further-more, b'UC PR, according to tiEDS, does not want f!EDS film; there- ) g fore, this system, unless accepted by NUC PR and in a form they can use, will not satisfy the 10CTR50, Appendix B, Criterion Vll requirement. In addition, the use of this system will be for current data and old data will be added only an' time permits. 4 If one considers that most of the equipment for a nuclear power plant has already been purchased and delivered, the data base will have limited value to NUC PR. i Recent procedure changes for QED require vendors to supply a j list of documents that will provide proof that the conmodity satisfies the contract specifications'. This should help elimi- ~ nate the problem of negotiating with the vendor and certainly [' provide a checklist for the materials engineers to check for contract dccumentation cocpleteneas. The changes in the program and actions described above, while necessary and well intended, only address symptoms. They do not address the overall TVA problem of collecting and collating in a retrievable mann'er information from several divisions and trans-mitting that information to NUC pR. In order for the QA records I system to work effectively, the overall problem must be addressed and solved. This will require a cooperative effort from TVA top I management in POWER, OEDC, and OQA. D. Usability of Records by NUC TR l-NUC PR is the ultimate recipient of all QA records generated during the procurement and construction phases of the nuclear power plant. As such, they must be able to use the records once I they are turned'over to them. To ensure their usability, the 3 records inust be retrievable; and to enhance retrievability, the s j records should be edited down to only the essential record : and indexed in e manner that is understandable. ,p i ANSI N45.2.9-1974 states that the storage system for QA records l will provide for the accurate retrieval

• of information without g

undue delay. The standard also requires an indexing system I Lm ;

,) ATTACiniENT D Page 34 of 44 l. e 9

[

that indicaten where the recordx a re t u lic s tored. ID-QAP 17.1 i* requires that Ql:8 provide document-level indexing for engineered equipstent and f older-level indexing where nppropriate. Retrievability without undue delay is difficult to define. Some HUC PH employees claim that the information they have been requested to find in the past has been found in'a few hours at g i most. Others were skeptical that certain typen of data, espe-cially mill certifications, could be located after CONST left the site. g The contract filen at HUC PR SQN are indexed to what is estled the folder level. At times the folder is the entire file. Many 1 1 files were poorly organized. Also, there are many documents in the files that are not required. Examples were film of enve-l l lopes and machine copied test patterns. St!!!, for small contracts, i the retrieval of information, if in fact the information is present, '/ vould not be diffleult. But for large contrnets, the low level { i 2 of indexing, the poor organization, and lack of editing would f i i present a real problem in retrievability. 'N Still, a f air level of nenr-term retrievability could be c'xpected long as the people responsible for the orginal collectien of g as the records are available for consultation, either in EN DES or y {4 CONST. The overall lack of uniformity in-the entire area of . 9 i vendor generated QA records makes the long term usability of ( th-se records suspect. The Bellefonte containment contract which was reviewed in Knox-3 e ville in n gned exemple of the complications that might arise. Thi's was a very large file--several drawers full. Since it was 1 on a later plant, the file was in better order and better indexed s that those nt SQN. The piece of data that was requested was j located by QED but only af ter consulting with the inspector at the rexional offlee who set up the file. As time passes and the recordn are transferred, the availability of finding data for a j l contract such as this will probably be g.eaoly reduced. With the decreasing QED workload and normal attrition, some of the regional inspectors enay be going to other Johs. This problem van encountered in the NSRS review of SQN CONST during thin 3 ' j investigstlen. Pernennel responsible for collecting and storing records were no longer onsite. e g The overall usability of the QA tereris fonnd at SQN is highly suspect for the reamonn stated above. C. Ab R ty 2 the TVA Sy,, stem to Hect the NRC and ANSI Requirements f = { Since RC 1.8B endorses ANSI N45.2.9-1974, this scetion will only l n address the ANSI standard. TVA implements the standard through the Topical Report, the ID-QArs, and lower level procedures. j Generally, each level of control adequately proceduralizes the requirements of the higher tier controlling document for the e 'I T ,c. -.,,._.-----==w'-----W-v'- F y

ATTAClutENT D Page 35 of 44 .:..:- e e ( upecific area for which the runtrolled oixanization has juils-

• illet inn. TVA's procedures, with some interpretation.inil it irepl e a

( i rnented, should meet the s equirreuent of the ANSI utnndard, k h in nvtunt practice they are not rumpletely impirmented and a prob-1 lem in encountered when different divistuns interface. Not all rrepaired QA records were given to NilC pH by EN DES. !!ven thongh [ every organization believed they weie doing their Job, the intent p of getting all QA records in the contaal of the ultimate user was p not being met. There van no overall check of the enntrolling g funellon. Planagten may have reviewed the snrk perform d l'y per-nonnel under them, but nu one m:snaner reviewed the overall TVA QA arturds control. D. Qi,ejy Gignifleance A logical concern after reviewing the previous portions of this ,r report would be the safety significnnce of a pour set of QA records. In reviewing the Qt.U records, the paper trails of quality for specific pieces of equipment, and'in dinrunniens with peraonnel involved in the paper trnil, it le difficult to state unequivocally that there is or is not a safety problem. g To place some perspective on this question, it is best to briefly review the process by the vendor and the line orgnnir.ation for annuring a quality prodnet. f The first level of quality is supplied by the vendor in its QA y program. That program is reviewed by QEB to assure that the vendor can produce a commodity with the quality desired by TVA. ) 'l h,e re f o r e, hefore a piere of equipment is offered to TVA, it has gone throngh the vendor's OA pronrnm anel the vendur believes it F mertu TVA's specifications, a Hest, the TVA regional inspector physically inspects the com- .modity und the documentation or data at testing to its. epn lity. lin ref ore, at the time of shipment, both the vendor nnd the TVA yr.ll rey.lonal innpcetor are r.atinfind tha. the equipment enects the Contract specifirations, t A t hird review is perina med by CUN'iT lilt; when t he vennmndit y neriven at the site. 'lhe re t he filt; assu r em Ithelf that all the repe l pmen t is accounted for, that 11 meets the contenit npecifi-cntjona, that ()ED has authorived its shipment, and tlint any vendur data to be sent with the repsip.. tent is nernnnled for. I the cepelpment, therefore, haN three levels of inNpertlnn by thC time it is accepted at a plantsite. The QT.ll unit supervisors ln Knoxville are required to further ine.pret the records to nasure t hey are accurate and templete. I P4 Esnmining the inspection proress it breomen apparent that the i i Q).ll reginnul inspector in the key to assuring that the vendnr 'e merts the contract speellications. With the exception of the d.

l

• gu i.ql k,0.4tt h'*17(d M.9,.' I"Y ' : * ## ' I ' ' ' '. d

,..l.(,..rJ,.,7;-l't-Tip,.I. i '.

• ATTAClutENT D page % of 44

.. 'd t

• J

.y',.' a .o T vendor, and in sosie rases the HIC, the regional inspector is i . the only one in'the QEB organlaation that can physically inspect the coeumodity against the vendor QA documentation and the TVA

• i specifications.

All other QEB evaluations for a comodity will involve a backup check of what was previously done by the vendor or the regional inspector by snaking a comparison between QA docu-i mentation and contract spect!! cations. Such a backup check could detect such deficiencies as using the wrong materials in construc-tion, a deficiency which should have been detected in previous inspections. The same would also hold true for a technical engineer's review of QA data. In the case of nondestructive i testa performed by the vendor, the regional inspector in the only one in TVA that can physically observe those tests and the only one in TVA who, in most cases, ever reviews RT film. All other TVA reviews will be of the paperwork certifying that a test..., s W. ' was performed and that the vendor and regional inspector recorded the pass / fail test results. Therefore, all TVA reviewing, in the ' '8,- r QEB chain of paperwork, beyond the regional inspectors will cnly involve a recomendation of documentation previously examined by 't the regional inspector. For example, the 480-volt shutdown beards for CQN went through the normal review process--vendor QA, regional inspector, and HIC. The paperwork went through a secondary and tertiary review by the QEB Electrical Unit and technical engineer. The shutdown .^ boards were accepted, but during installation, TVA deternined that the welds in the shutdown board, had every defect possible. No amount of paperwork review could find that kind of defect. The probability appeara very small of finding a defect in a comodity through a paperwork review. At best the review alght have established that the initial reviews were not made or that certain portions of inspections were incomplete. Quality assurance records can be of significant safety leportance in a number of situations. When svneric safety problems are identified with a given vendor, either due to material problems, process problems, or function perferr.,ance problems, it te extremely important for the utility to determine if the identified problem exists at the operating plant. This requires both the existence of the records and the retrievability of the records. In the absence of adequate docwnents, it could be necessary to either shut down and replace or require some degree of yerification. Itecords are also important in evaluating causes of f ailure of a component or system. Exarninstion tif QA records may provide key information to deterrnine the cause of failure or to identify corrective action. In their present forn, QEB generated QA records may not be sufficient for the above purposes. V. CONCI,US10NS A. Vendor-supplied QA records obtained by QED for SQN have not been completely turned over to NUC TH and t,here does not appear to be j any plans to do so in the near future. This places TVA in I nm ne

t ef*

y

r.

g g l I violation of 10CFR$0, Appendix D, Griterion VII, and Topical -Report requirements. Although this report examined the flow of I records to and at SQN, there is no basis to believe that this conclusion would not also apply to other TVA nuclear facilities. ( E i B. There is no overall OEDC cffort to provide hUC PR a complete QA file integrating both CONST and QEn records in a usable form, pl This is in violation with TVA QAp pRH 17QpR-1. d C. The level of effort being expended to assure that more than 700 m!!11on dollars worth of QA records are properly assembled g and accounted for is'tess than adequate. g, i D. The retrieval of information from vendor QA records at SQN by NUC FR is considered to be inadequate due to the poor organiza-l tion, lack of completeneas, low level of indexing, and lack of editing. Retrieval depends upon une of individuals located I ' 'y away from the site that are not readily controlled by HUC PR. D. There is no coordinated TVA effort to assure the adequacy of identification, collection, collation, indexing, and distr,1bu-tien of vendor QA records. T. TVA would meet the requirements of HRC regulations and ANSI h standards if the current requirements and intent of documented b procedures were followed; however, their irnplementation, partic-g ularly at the interface point between,various TVA organizations, q is less than adequate. This results in a records system that i ricets neither the intent nor letter of the regulations. Here pg fr plerrentation of the procedures in their present form without regard to intent and an overall control of their implementation by an organization capable of easily crossing organizational boundaries would not solve the problem. VI. JUDGliElli 0F HEEDS f A. A coordinated OEDC/rokT.fi/0QA ef fort is re quired to assure prac-f tical and consistent implernentation of TVA policy regarding the identification, collection, collation, indexing, and transfer of q q vendor QA records in a f orm usable to NUC rit. This effort should begin at the of fice enanager level with a comitment of how, when, i and in what form the records transfer should occur: and the elfort should be continued by individuals knowledgeable of vender QA 0 records and ADP processes. 1his cont;nuing cifort should be ( teordinated by an organization with the authority and capability to easily cross organizational boundaries. h D. A coordinated effort is needed by OEDC and NUC rit to assemble a j and transnit in a unable form contract files for all currently corpleted contracts and purchase orders on a plant-specific basis. This should include all QED and CONST records previously t submitted to NUC rit. 3 n .1/..

' e, .c s, e s,,. TTACllitENT 1 wtLOME S J. H. Winebrenner n o 5 MECHANICAL / NUCLEAR g 2 J. F. Lewis O s N D o" 3{ INSTRUMENTATION 4 E k sl[ (HSPECTlotl 0FFICE O 4 bc F. F. Ross

• h j

VI N o Oi f L h PITT30VRGH REGIONAL t: P5 INSPEC~lott OFFICE w$ $ ~, n N. D. l'elecovich 4 M @u 8d 3 PHILADELFillA REGIONAL T O O* INSPECTION OFFICE d V. C. Kolinger ) 1 l I1 LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INSPECT 10tl 0FFICE l hU ( II. J. Schumacher 0z 0'. W c CHARLOTTE REGlotlAL u. J INSPECTl0t{ OFFICE y l1. A'. Brittinghnm n DlRMINGHAM REGIONAL INSFECT10t1 0F FIC E _ f

k. Th 'fk. .'I * '. .,s., 3 p[* t., v.

• V ATTACIDIENT D Page 39 of 44 ATTACllMENT 2

SUMMARY

OF CONTRACT FILES REVIEk'ED { l I. Atmospheric Relief Valves - 92697 d 1 This contract file was on microfilm in the Knnxville QEB of fice. [0 The t file appeared to be completed, but the radiographic test (RT) reader sheets were illegible. A hard copy of this file had been sent to SQN L r CONST in two parts on August 16, 1977 and October 18, 1977. The b CONST file for this contract had been microfilmed by MEDS. The O microfilm had been sent back to SQN CONST and transferred to NUC TR. The NUC PB microfilm of this contract I'le included a copy of the contract, various correspondence, QEB and H10 inspection and testing

• k l

( reports; but no test data or information on the RT film was available. In a hard copy file at HUC PR copies of Cope and Vulcan procedures i and RT procedures with the shot loutions were found, but still no RT reader sheets were available. 2. Auxiliary Control Air Dryers - 83630-1 j This contract file was on microfilm in the Knoxville QEB office. a The file appeared to be complete. All information in the file was in !j chronological order with the latest document first. g A hard copy of this file vse sent to SQN CONST on August 16, 1977. After the NSRS p! review at SQH, CnNST personnel found the hard copy sent by QEB. f' It in ' storage in filing cabinets in another building. The CONST was file f or this contract had been microfilmed and the film transferred g l to NUC PR in.the same manner as the previous file. E The NUC PR microfilm did not contain manufacturer's specifications, data packages, or certificates of compliance. This microillmed copy i was in a more orderly format than the QEB microfilm. That is, a copy of the contract was first and information was gathered into groups of l comon typen. In the SQN NUC PH hard copy file were data packages but not certtiicates of compliance. The vendor-related QA data was incoriplete at SQN NUC PR.

• k

( .1. Aurillary Control Air Dryers, Dewpoint Alarm - 83630-2 This contract file was on microfilm in the Knoxville QED office. The Edf file appeared to be complete. A hard copy of this file was sent to M SQN CONST on August 16, 1977. The CONST file for this contract had been microfilmed and the filtr. transferred to NUC rn in the same manner as the previous filew. 4 i The NUC PR microfilm contained a copy of the contract and the QEB inspection reports but did not contain the certificates of compliance { or test data packages, c j a I e

'h II' . 7 ~ ~

r. :

...o g ATTACHMEt(T D g Page 40 of 44 4. Vertien! Turbine _ pumping Units - 9_2_60'). This contract file was on microfilm in the Knoxville QEB office. The l information was in two different locations on the microfilm and l divided by another contract. The image numbers given for the con-t h tract were incorrect. The reel numbers had been changed in ink, and I the wrong reel was given to the reviewers initially. The file was not formated in an orderly manner. There was a large amount of test g [ data, certificates of compliance, and miscellaneous information g available, but the method in which the contract was set up made it impossible for the reviewers to determine its completeness in a g l reasonable length of time. A hard copy of the file was sent to SQN L in two parts on August 16, 1977 and October 18, 1977. The CONST file for this contract had been microfilmed and the film transferred to l NUC PR in the same manner as the previous flies. I i The NUC FR microfilm contained no test data packages. It did contain the usual information such as HIC receiving reports and several l copies of the contract. The file was in a less orderly format than [ other files reviewed at NUC PR. l', 5. Steam Generator Safety Valves - 92696 Part of this contract file was on microfilm at QED in Knoxville and l part was in hard copy. The microfilm section included a copy of the i contract and changes to it and a few types of required data and certifications. The hard copy, which was in the Records Unit files l being prepared for microfilming, contained data packages for all 40 valves. The combined contract file appeared complete. The hard copy [ of what QED had microfilmed had been sent to SQ4 CONST in two parts on August' 16, 1977 and October 18, 1977. The CONST files had been g microfilmed and the film transferred to NUC FR !.n the same manner as 'h the previous files, L 'The NUC PH microfilm contained a copy of the contract, QEB inspection i and testing reports, some correspondence, but no data packages. The SQN NUC FR hard copy file contained manufacturer's procedures, a copy of the contract, and test results for 6 valves (34 were missing). No reference was found at NUC PR in the contract files concerning the f I location of the RT film or the reader sheets. l 6. Ice Condenser Seals - 82064 Y' This contract' file was in hard copy form in t he Knoxville QEB of fice. It was well organized with an index in the front of the file. There l was also a matrix form checklist with data requirements versus data q received for each component in the contract; This file had not been ( sent to the QED Records Unit for microfilming preparation. Also, i there wsu no record of it having been 'sent to SQN CONST. The CONST l file for this contract had been microfilmed and the film transferred to NUC PR in the same manner as the previous files. The NUC TR microfilm was poorly organized, bu*t it did appenr complete. [ lt had more data than the QED file. E 5 t 7

.e; ',: h, ATTACIDiENT D h Page 41 of 44 e There were test data sheets and certificates of compliance available I which QEB did not have. 7. Ice Condenser Hinne Blocks - 823H44 This contract file was in hard copy form in the Knoxville QEB offlee. It was a small contract, and it appeared to be complete. This file had not been sent to QEB Records Unit for microfilening preparation. There was no record of it having been sent to SQN CONST. The CONST -j file for this contract had been microfilmed and the film transferred to NUC PR in the same manner as the previous files. I J-The NUC PR microfilm appeared to be complete. M: B. Aluminum and Stainless Steel Honeycombed Cushions - 82034 i . l Part of this contract file was on microfilm at QEB in Knoxville and ? r part was in hard copy. The microfilm portion contained, among other N things, a copy of the contract, speciffeations for the items, certi-( ficates of compliance, and shipping memorandums. The.hard copy _if portion of the contract file contained test data reports for all 3g cushions. There was no transmittal of the contract file to CONST or g s to MEDS. The CONST file for this contract had been microfilmed and 55 the film transferred to NUC PR in the same manner as the previous (j$ i files. Q The NUC PR microfilm contained a copy of the contract and changes to _d i it, receiving reports, and certificates of eompliance for eight d' cushions. There were 24 aliuninum and 96 stainless steel cushions bought on this contract, so there should have been 120 certificates

I of corpliance.

$l 9. Missile Doors for Air Conditioning Enclosures - 87226 This contract file was on microfilm in the Knoxville QED of fice. The , file centained a copy of the contract and the usual correspondence. 3 i There was no test data and no mill certifications. There was no 'E record'of shippinR the contract file to SQN CONST. The CONST file for this contract had been microfilmed and the film transferred to NUC PH in the same manner as the previous files. g i d 4 The NUC l'H microfilm contained a copy of the centract correspondente 'N and inspection and testing reports, but no vendor test data or mill di certifications. 10. Reactor Supports - 75018 t Part of this contract file was on ricrofilm at QED in Knoxville and part wa,s in hard copy. The mierefilm portion of the contract con-tained a copy of the contract, correspondence, and some manufacturer's .. Information. The hard copy file, which was in the QEB Records Unit files, contained data for all components in separate data packat,es, j a The combined contract file appeared complete.' The NSRS was told that l the contract file had been sent to SQN CONST in the 1979-80 time ] i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~' ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ " ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' ' ' ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ " ' ~ ~~ ' ' ' ~

'N ^ q p U?? b$Y g ATTAcim'.NT D gPage42of44 period and returned at a later date, but these was no record of this t r anstsi t t a l. and transferred to NUC l'R in the same manner as the p The NUC pR micretilra cont. tined a copy of the contract, correspon-dence, and shi packages, no r.pping and reativics records. There mere no test dat. ill test i reader' sheets. trportsj and no infor. cation on the :tT film or !( IL. Spare _ Diesel Generator an1 Lxeiter. Voltaae_Istulator -

m234, g

i This contract file was in hard copy form at Of.B Knoxville. contained a copy of the contract and correspesdence. The file [ teet data. There was no COMST or to tiEDS for microfilrain,t.There was also no rscord of the f i I The CONsf file <for the contract had been microfilmed and the film. transit.cred to NIN PR in the sa mar.r.er as the previous files. ( I the NVC I'h rsicrofilm contained a copy of the contract and changes to !. t There was meae correspondence at SQN than at QC'l. Q also reew hing reports but no test data nr certliiertes of corpll-There were 's* Some Installation instructions were incle.ded. ince. In the SQN hard copy centro 11ed roanuals was a copy of the selspie analysis and the { procedures for performina it. This was also present in the SQN hard copy contract file (considered to be duplicate't). The controlled copy rtse from the NUC TR Central Office in Chattanooga; of '.be oth6' copy was not known. tt.e origin 12. i.evel Swatches - g 530-1 This contract file was pressure tests were available.in I.: d copy in the Knoxville (;EB ofilee. test data was.on file at the ven!ct's plant.in the 11)s verified that p' A document Certifirstes of corrN4* ante were accepted. A materials, test filw was noted as being on (fle in Knoxville, but the. reviewe rs could not locate it. No test de'.a 9 , was available in the contract ille. = Of fice has been closed, their contract files had been sentSince the Chicago i office to L.oxville. from that The reviewers looked at. the Chicaco file for i-thle cos.treet, which was located in a differrnt area than other QED \\ filea, and large nunbers of test data Vert t (0Und, NOCh mor* than p could be locatej in the normal Knorv11.'e file. The regionel office hg Ille appeared tre be enore complete that i although it was less organized. the Knoxville effice file, TN.re m r.o record of the Cell con-j' tract file being shipped to SQN tt%57 er Io HEDS for microli,lreing. d Tut CONST file for this contract nar' been nicrollimed and the filts transferred to HUC la in the same.nsnner,e the previous files. i i The NUC TR anlernfilm contained r veral copies of the centract, cor-t i respor.Jerce, certifiesten of inepection, informstlen sheets, test dats for hydrostatic tests. and ecrtifirates of compilance. j The test data sheets were not complete. The imC l'R 1 y j du;.lica.tes) contained seirmic cei t i f ica t ion,[a n d copy (corvidered te n data sheets, and engitacering reports. The twate.'i s had os tainally been all listtd at l ( 4

l .~ h ATTAC!IMENT D h Page 43 of 44 requiring QA; but since many of the switches were in systems which did not require QA, memorandums had been written deleting some require-i ments for non-QA switches. i

13. 6900-Volt Switehgear and Transformers - 54495 This contract file was in hsid copy in QEll Knoxville.

The file was in the QEB Records Unit files and there was no record of it being transmitted to MEDS for microfilming or SQN CONST. The file was well 3 organized and appeared complete. A copy of the contract was included along with data packages, test reports, and certificates of compliance. I i Seismic certification was available, but that test data was not in the file. The CONST file for this cont ract had been microfilmed and the film transferred to NUC PR in the name manner as the previous files. ~ \\ The NUC PR microfilm contained much dup 1f eation.' Copies of the l I e i contract were included, both blank and complete.s Seismic certifi-1 r cation and shortage reports were included, but there were no test reports. The NUC PR hard copy file contained the seismic test report and analysis but did not contain the test reports found at QEB. i

14. 480-Volt Switchgear and Transformers - 54523 i

i l j This contract file was in hard copy in the Knoxville QEB Records Unit l 4 files. 4 This file was neat and well organized. A note'was in the file stating that tent data was with the technical engineer. Otherwise, the file appeared complete. Information was contained in the contract file- ) l that, af ter acceptance onsite, about every type of weld defect possible was found. These were corrected by the vendor. The completed contract i had not been filmed or sent to SQN CONST. The CONST file for this con-k t ract had been microfilmed and the film sent to NUC PR in the same manner ( as the previous files. / r

_ ~

, s s The NUC PR microfilm contained a copy of the contcvet and changes to it, r,eceiving reports, certificates of compliance, and correspondence. R i h l' l There were no test data packages. The NUC PR hard copy file contained [ li certificates of compliance for seismic anlayses, transformer tests, _h i equipment manuals, and apparently complete test data. Mhumu ERUlE0

15. Accumulators, Pumps, CVCS - 826.101 MW'l f

This contract file was in hard ecpy at the Knoxville QEB office. No test data was available in the Knoxville file; it was all still in { L the 1.os Angeles Regional Of fice. The 1os Angeiec office had its 1 flies marked as completed on May 7, 1981. The CONST file for this t contract had been microfilmed and the film transferred to NUC PR in h j g the same manner as the previous filen. fFa l The NUC PR microfilm file had a copy of the contract and three copies l i g g-of appendices A, B, and C. It also had four document packages. A m note was present stating that the RT file had been returned to SQN NUC PR, but the location of that film could not be determined. g y, y j

j l

i 4 t 5

y e. g. .w w...a., m,m ;mw,m a, ywygg.3g w v.'. i. ,g, 4 ATTACIDIENT D Page 44 of 44 .+. 16. Bellefonte Containment - 85617-1 This. contract file was reviewed to determine the means of retrieving i. data from a completed file. It was in hard copy form and had only recently been reviewed and sent to the QEB Recorda Unit. The reviewers asked to see information on a piece of a polar crane bracket, 3-56 M1-1, PA 3-55-5. The information was found in about three hours and i with a telephone conversation between the QEB Knoxville materials I engineer (section supervisor) and the inspector in the field office h to deterrine the vendor's method of cross-referencing. The person { indexing the file also helped in locating the requested document. The Veldments Unit Supervisor indicated a need to add additional g l intelligence to the file.f or o.ase of information retrieval. g p, h 6 f f T e 4 t I ~ s I f k l 6 l

) f ATTACIMENT E NSRS Investigation Report R-85-07-NPS i 2 S ,.a g I k e 1 !r e g 9 a i ~ 4 n d i t 1 O l 4 1 k' [, 1 4 4 m; 3 u.. y c g.. Y..I 3 q w.

3. -

Y#' 3 0 4 P - t t. O g 7 ~. f m / '^

• f~ f!

7G jy v i i

~ - ~ w w. c-i ) P ,1 N. -[h,l"{,,I. ih I r.,,p,,., , s.

~[ q. sqc.\\:~, :.;

I 8 ATTACIDiENT E Page 16 of 16

g 2.

Data Packsge on Ites No. TVA KK-68-7, TVA B/M-47V465-3, Orifice

• ~

Plate and Transmitter for Unit 1 Reactor Coolant Loop (SQN) 4 3. Informal Note from J. L. Snyder to D. Smith dated March 27, 1985, " Recap of Study on Vendor Records" 4. Contract Inventory Worksheets from QEB E 5. QEB Computer Inventory of Vendor Er:ords Completed t 6. FRIDF. Data Description. Form i 7. Miscellaneous Component Recorda Retrieved upon Investigator Request (SQH) f i -r E i K =- O eq N i O i. o e 3 l4 I, s. e y I N Li e 14 t l l -!..

n..~, -c~.~mre, ,, a U...;$ .h. kh f' > h:m. I

• • \\*s 8"

y....,.a .. r;*. >. s. vu 1. T. TENNESSEE VALI.EY AUTHORITY NUCIIAR SAFETT REVIEW STAIT 3 REPORT NO. R-85-07-NPS

SUBJECT:

FOLLOV-UP REVIEW OF QEB RECORDS INVESTICATION I-83-13-NPS DATES OF j' REVIEW: MARCH 18, 1985 - APRIL 15, 1985 N l N TEAM LEADER: i g R. D. S!11Tli DAIE N TEAM MEMBER: l ,N R. C. CUISHAW DAIE O o AFFROVED: H. S. 11DD O DATE ~ O E' l V 1 l is - I

?

-

1 it p l e 1

t a.,,, v .n a. +m- + r-f I eh ; ',..............keidb.,;f$N.32)).W. 'i$dhk' ~ . 'TN.I. }'f 'If..i {k. !;,f dg.r.t c.% y, p t.'g.... s- ..e Page 2 of 16 i t j'.W:*, c p n' ] tr g. ~ ' l l .I s TABLE OF CONTENTS 8 '.i..

Page, I. Background..

1 II. Scope 2 i III. Conclusions /Reconsendations 2 IV. Status of Previously Identified Open Items 2 V. Details... 5 ( A. Corrective Action Management 5 B. Quality Engineering Branch 6 M C. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 7 8 ..... '....., 8 D. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant g E. Vendor Manuals D V. Personnel Contacted 9 y \\ j VI. References 10 N t O t 4 0 1 J O < g e t . J k. e s q i E. i .l p t i i-I 1 1 j I l I 1 r~ 1 l

O I 1.BACIGROUN.D'id[ ny r - -Q The original ' Nuclear Safety Review Siaff (NSRS) investigation'.U ' # I. I h *,. '., y' )' I-83-13-NPS 8found.that' vendor records assembled by the Quality' Engineering' Branch'(QEB) were not being transmitted and incorporated 8 into..the ' construction records for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQF) as L :- required by TVA procedures. It futher found that construction records ' '%'d t[, associated,jvith-QEB source inspected procurements filmed and trans-3,., L-mitted".to j the 8 0ffice of Nuclear Power (NUC PR) at SQN, were not k indexed to a: level sufficent to allow easy retrieval, and the coe-f -i pleteness.of records at both SQN construction and QEB was in question. l[ As the. organizations involved in the collection, transfer, and receipt of the records exhibited interf acing problems at that time, it was f recommended " that i an interdivisional task force reporting to the Assistant-General lianager (AGM) (Technical) be formed to correct the problems. identified and establish an effective records system. s...y. ~:. e : ::,.a g The implementation Tof the above recommendation was delegated to the ei_ ' ',9[ E tianager

• of"Ingineering ' Design and Construction, further delegated jointly to the Project fianagers for Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN) and Watts Bar'Ruclear Plant (VBN) who established a task force chaired by V

.f e the Assistant.lianager of Construction. Through the ef forts of that g task force, which was in existence between December 1983 and ' April 'y[' 1984,' considerable progress was made toward irproving interdivisional .e consrunications and the -improvement of a records maintenance and N retrieval system.p ' ,....g...,. Of significance, the task force brought about a change in the require-ment that QEB, records be incorporated isto construction records and.l g . transferred. to NUC PR in total. NUC FR identified those records it required at the site for ir:nediate access (e.g., construction records), 4 l,:o those that could be retrieved within a few days and located elsevbere 3 d . D within TVA (e.g.,'QEB records), and those that could be forwarded to a r yederal records ; repository (e.g. vender radiographs). Organizatienal i ', assig=nents were made within the task force to effectuate the changes 7 g 'A in record locations and esse of retrievability,, procedures were pre-L. .. o pared,' and' the task force disbanded. Unfortunately, the corrective o actions were not, totally effective. jI Since, disbandment'of the task force, individual organizational efforts 3 I* were " underway ^ to' implement their assignments, and improvements in record = Nre ;'seen by ' NSRS during this follow-up review; however, ; f Y records retrieval systems were not yet couplete. QEB records for SQM NSSSTand: principal piping' contracts ressined unverified for cocplete ' ness'and' lacked easy retrievabiltiy. Information: retrieval continues t6%' vary dependent upon thd menorier. of people at SQN, VBN, and QEB. Open itens left by the task force were being followed as an sneillary i function of the Office of Construc* ion (OC) Quality Assurance Brsach (QAB). tianagementToversight"of Sall in'dividuallefforts was not seen.' - e i

i.

I:I i I k. 1 j

ie f 1 il II. SCOPE I r.. The NSRS conducted a follow-up corrective action review of the find-ings and

• recommendations associated with NSRS report I-83-13-NFS.

This review covered the activities of the Of fice of Engineering (OE), OC, and NUC PR regarding the accumulation, storage, transferring, and e; retrievability of vendor and construction records connected with pro-curements requiring QEB source inspection. This follow-up review included discussions with personnel and the review of selected records at SQN, VBN, and QEB. [ 111. CONCI.USIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS R-85-07-NPS-01, Manager of Power and Engineerinz Appointment of a s Records Mansaer Conclusion [ upper management coordination entity was a f Throughout this review no or to to resolve prograsumatic problems It appears that identified as a focal point establish priorities and schedules for coepletion. the upper management involvement that was present during the task m It force era has been lost through reorganizations and retirements. N is essential that: upper management:,become involved,once sgsin and,to continue"its involvement' until such time. as' TVA's tremendou '4 old vendor

• records aretint retrievable.orderasad the present sy N

0 ~ piscing' neFvsaddr' 'r'ec6rdssystem proves.itself ef fective -(see< s 3 N Recomendation It is recommended that the Manager of Power and Engineering appoint an O upper-level manager impovered with the responsibility, authority, and to assure that records associated with the 3 procurement' and installation of QEB source inspected equipment organizationgl freedes O materials ~ are as sembled, i verified for completeness, indexed, and o and future users of those by

• present stored.for ' retrievability records.
• That spointee's scope should include all U

a schedule for co.mpletion.of p~ast records.. ment cfe.8, g IV. STATUS OT.EREVIOUSLT IDEKIIFIED OPEN ITEMS The memorsndum transmitting report I-83-18-NPS to the AG 4 : :. i.:.. : contained ' one broad recensendation. rec 6mendation has each of the issues still requiring action, that been divided into two separate recocnendations as follows. i f S 2 q g f I og 4a ~- --

T

j.4 i

t 7) . p;i-e I-83-13-NFS-01, Exaeine Tindings of NSRS Report (1-83-13-NPS) A. and Tase Necessary Steps to Identity Actions Required By the Line 7 Organizations (1%'ER. OEDC. OQA. and OGN) to: t o'.' Develop an Integrated Records System f or QA Records that 1. Will Satisfy the Needs of NUC PR and OEDC

• \\

NUC PR has identified the records required and subdivided them into three categories. Those subdivisions are docu-mentpd in procedures and supplemented by memorandum for site-specific construction records. Assignments for records g Records index-responsibility have been made by procedure. ing procedures have been prepared and are in various stages A TVA task force was working on vendor of implementation. manuals. This item vill remain open until the conclusions and recommendations of the vendor manual task force have been evaluated by NSRS and more experience is gained by the T Office of Power and Engineering (FLE) with the records indexing system. (See sections V.A and V.E f or details.) Correct Implementing Deficiencies Identified'in the .l 2. i g Existieg System ti-i of the major problems were found in this area, e dost a. QEB records were not adequatley indexed and there was some concern regarding their. completeness. Efforts N into the vere under way to place coepleted contracts indexing format and have them filmed by established The fmore :voluminobs-NSSS and principal piping" q RIMS. fort contracts.'twere, still.': unorganized, and unverified ~ QEB stated they would receive the n coerpleteness. highest future priority; however, no schedule for con-pletion had been developed. (See section V.B for g ,f details.) A117constructie f

• records 4for/SQN had been transferred

.3 b. or'.S verei in ;.the,, final.'. s ta ge:Wo f.. filming. A Records Retrieval-Jndexing:!(RRI),sys, ten vas prepared but -judged -- Q i 'b it :did: pot preclude the ' :S,. not. totally' ef fect ve. ecause, i "f

• k.".' ' ~q, needatoirely upen',itodatl'a' geextentPthe m r

i. l for> details.) 3 1,, c., Construction records for VEN vere being identified for .e-transfer to hTC PR. An RRI had been prepared and com-munications between OE and hTC FR st WBH regarding records and indexing was active. The mechanism f o r i' selecting DC records systems for transfer, establishing 1 if transfer priority, and records acceptability was less ' j-formal than it should be to be effective. Records requested during this review were retrievable but this s= was dependent upon people's memories. The level of ll ,M K / k 3 ?, i-i ~

ee.. ; e :, indexing and cross reference espability described for the records when ultimately transferred to NUC FR , should, reduce the people dependency and provide a very ' unable set of construction records. (See section V.D .l.for, details.). 'L ,d. Continued upper management coordination involvement at level capable of crossing organizational boundaries a . is considered necessary until the problems are solved and records systems prove effective. This item remains a open. t(See section V.A for details.) 8 . Provide Docu:sentation Records to Each of the Operating 3. l . Sites as Required by NRC Requirements and IVA Coemitments QEB records are no longer required to be ensite. TVA proce-F 'dures and the Topical Report have been changed to reflect au that change. I, r An NCR (GEN QEB 8401) was written for WEN and BLN identify-g ing noncompliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, criterion IVII, ( and ANSI R45.2.9 regarding QEB records ~ indexing and retriev-1 ,N ability.' ESRS found the specified corrective actions for 14 that NCR had been accomplished. l i"' N Procedures exist to accomplish the transfer of records to SQN. These records are now or soon vill be transferred. h-The retrievability of records is the subject of iten V. A.2 M above and will be followed and resolved through activities '] N associated with that ites. This item is closed. (See jr O . section V.B for details.) r 4. Clarify Organi:stional Responsibilities a With the exception of a clearly defined system for ve_ dor i o manuals, organizational responsibi.lities have been defined. This item re:nains open ppnding the resolution of the vender O manual issue.- (See section V.E for details.) i B. I-83-13-NPS-02,' Report Back to the OGM on the Planned Actions and s [, i Schedule for Coupletion of Actions e, i Two reports? vere made by the Manager of OEDC to the ACM { (Technical) regarding the implementation plans and schedules of OEDC and NUC FR. The plans were predominately p'rocedural in nature and the schedules indicated when the revisions were to be completed. The corrective action was less than adequate in that no schedule was provided that established when the records them-selves would be verified as complete and indexed for retriev-ability. At the time of this ' review the OC records traorfer for SQM was essentially corplete and, therefore, no sch:dule is required.. VBN by procedure has until six nonths af ter concercial 4 W 4 4

l N fh I ,M '. / g f.i. 2. Eff.!of.16

1. ?* [

. 7, 5,

• , Y.(:'[. N

{

Q, - \\ N. (' operation of unit 2 to transfer records; however, a shorter time-

frame'is preferable by BSRS for those records systems that reach ' "

H ~, ' completion.. - QEB, however, has not completed verification and indexing of their records for SQH and WBN nor has QEB established . a schedule for doing so.' This item remai.ns open. (See section V.B for details.) f y . :..; w T;$ i V. DETAILS.!,;. 'n 'f t-A. Corrective Action Management I ' l'

As the. original investigation found interface problems between

0E, OC, and NUC PR impacting their assigned responsibilities, it

/ was recommended that an upper management task force capable of .l

• crossing divisional' boundaries be established to further quantify and ' solve problems identified in ESRS report I-83-13-NFS.

It i was further ' recoamended that the task force report to the AGM (Technical).! Through a series of delegations a task force or r , committee was established under the chairmanship of the Assistant ' Manager. of. Construction with the task force reporting to the g Project Jianagers for. VBN and BLN. j .~ Representation on the task force included a good cross section of ,3 c personnel from OC and NUC FR and included representation for ,7 Office of Quality Assurance (0QA) and periodically QEB. Through that task force NUC FR developed a three level system of records which was incorporated into procedure ID-QAP-17.1 and formed the basis for dividing records responsibilities. QEB N would retain, be responsbile for, and retrieve information free O ' vendor records under their source inspection program. Construc- / tion vould assume responsibility for construction records asso-cisted with vendor products af ter the itens were released for 3 i M R at" ' o task force developed an indexing systen for l'.[In"additionM the O That . ; records 'to be. transferred to NUC FR by each project office. ' i indexing'i system was called.RRI, and generically proceduralized O .with input ' fron both OE and NUC PR in OC QAP 17.2, " Records u J/; J3 Retrieval Instructions." Each project (SQN, VEN, and BLN) was to l .,,i, 'i

t.. M

' IU develop' their own site-specific RRI. If !! y q :.s.. y v -

• i:; '.;

.. In April' 1984, the task force held its last meeting thus terst-4 '".. nating its ' existence. On June 8, 1984, by memorandum, the ., Project hansgers for WBN and BLN requested the fianager of P&E to reassign' responsibility for follow-up of R 33-13-NFS findings to The Manager of F&E did not concur in the transfer and OE. W further upper nanagement involvement in this issue could not be .8 identified. Since there was no further upper annagement atten-tion given this project, it.: appears that' schedules'for tospletion of -QEB records, ansvers.to prograrnatic prcblems,.and follow-up . of:taskiforce open iteas '(which vere beingitrackedias an'ancil- 1.ary/ function by the'-0C QAB) reesin' unaddressed.' 1 h 5 i

l l r. .y

.. n,.,,,,.. +.....

.y' Vith - reorganizations end retirements, the initially involved. E upper management personnel are no longer in positions to assume responsibility of this important task. While the Project Managers for VBN and BI.N are still concerned and involved with the records, associated with QEB source inspected vendors as they their '- proj ects, their positions do not cover ths pertain toi entire OE, involvement in all nuclear plants. It would be appro-priate to reassign 'the overall responsibility of vendor records ,b. to a manager'. organizationally capable of assuring that the .,9 C efforts of OE,.0C,"and NUC PR are coordinated and accomplished both., timely and effectively. t B. Quality Engineering Branch Based on NSRS report I-83-13-NPS a generic NCR (NCR GEN QEB 8401)' was written stating QEB vendor records were not easily retriev-iable and that records were not transferred to the designated g permanent storage location. ; The corrective actions specified for '. i y that RCR.were accomplished, namely, procedures developed, people Q . trained,tand permanent storage 1er:ations redefined. However, the i ' original problem regarding retrievablity was not solved. { ,,n s. p; 6i - ci: s F P-their needs and .cf [QEB developed,an' indexing. system suitable to it in QEB-EP 24.7..Vork began on processing approxi-defined,650 f t ,o - 3 mately - .of complyted nuclear contract records in N liarch 1984. ' A goal of 5 f t per week was established and highest priority placed upon SQN and VBN records. QEB e:rployees were ~ brought in free the field offices to assist in the effort. 3 At the time of this review QEB had precessed 126 ft of records o through February 28 1985 reflecting a processing rate of approximately ; 2.5 f t3.per., week. Of those processed a pp roxi-S. sately 37. percent' were for' SQN and VBN, 28 percent for BFN and BLN wity the' remaining 45 percent of, the processing effort going. O records of deferred or cancelled nuclear plants and fossil ' 'f toward,V Vh11e' the ' statistics,show original goals and priorities lplants. o

veralnot being met / progress.was being made.

Two of the five ' QEB isections'have 4 completed almost all-of their records, one I o 1 sectionj has'its ' records in~ order in hard copy, and another is ii./.H,,

• '/R'

.. " ',.f" placing.its ipriorities iprimarily in the VEN, SQN area. Of con - cardto.f)SRS.'are.ithe[ major, NSSS,.'and principal piping contraets 1 "j'y~ ' 'i ?! '. - ~ ~ ..].. ! ! "AforJSQN:.and VBN'whichrhave not been.vorked on since the original' p a ,$ \\ !,. L; * !l NSRST~iETeVEigation.".3 EB nansgement stated that incres:ed i Q

; '.; J -

ij priority would be'placed upon those contracts and a new addition 'i to the QEB Knoxville. staff was coming from a field office to help i, , '/ .! in that ares.P. 'i. i, 3 ] Reasons were given as to why the processing rate van not 5 f t h per week (e.g., lack of personnel, other priority work, RIHS not I able to keep. up); however, no information was found that indi-cated OE management van svare that QEB precessing (verification of record completeness, indexing, and entering into RIMS) would u 6 M-6 6f Jg -

~ ' ATTACHMENT E Page 9 of 16 e,. - gi - 3 I !~ ~ take twice as long as anticipated (i.e., four to five years) or that they concurred in the increased time. The original estimate placed the processing effort at about two years excluding any. increase in the number of completed contracts. In addition, there was no TVA upper management official (discussed in section V.A above) to oversee progress or provide added impetus. To evaluate the retrievability of records by QEB for SQN, QEB was ~ requested to produce manufacturing data for a flow element in the unit I reactor coolant system. That information was produced in I about two working days and, considering the type of information requested and nature of the request, NSRS considers retrieval of that information to be outstanding. Unfortunately;.-the retrieval. of that *information: wast;notydue to-the QEB'*tecords

• retrieval sys P'eTrieVed based 'uponVvhat: peopleM(both present and tem. 5ItNas r

ioreer. TyA:ewployees)eremembered. JThat exerc,ise. highlights.three rettlevable bdt. dependent: points:M(pthe, records.areXcurrently$nsidered"aTinteg'ral part 6.jiid~pe'cple;h2)'$p^e6}iliishoVlfhitbe c ~ r' l ofTav re f.rtev11+difITctilt.sy: tem 4111& pyntes; Tud ?(3)'theYdevelop retrieval' c3 TO Considering all the above, QEB should take steps to assure that the NSSS and principal piping contracts are verified, indexed for retrievability, and stored (either hard copy or RIMS) as soon as is reas nably possible to produce a quality, usable end product. N C. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant i M OC at SQN had coupleted processing all of its records. The gen-eral records (training, certification, etc.), had not been pro-q* ceased at the time of the original investigation. Since that y. investigation, the SQN RRI was developed and the general records were indexed to it. The records previously filmed on plant sys-3 tens remained as they were found during the original investiga-tion with some additional indexing. g An 4RRI ;had been' prepared,toyenhance hTC;PR retrieval of OC-7 . records.Q '.ItF was".reviewedt by NSRS rand" judged to. be, a good description of the records available, but of. little value in locating;the/ records. Various pieces of equipment were selected l by NSRS to demonstrate their records retrievability. It was found that records retrieval was dependent upon the collective memory of four individuals, a lot of searching, and not the retrieval system. Two of those people were hTC FR esployees and two were OC employees that would not have their present jobs in I the near fuhre. It is understood that since SQN plant systems records have already been filned and the hard copy records destroyed, the task of developing or retrofitting an indexing i system is extrenely difficult and in some":casest may not be L Justifiable. However, the future usability of those records is dependent upon just such an ef fort (probably in some cases a manual indexing on a frame-by-frame basis). As SQN is down to four knowledgeable individuals, it appears imperative that addi-1 tional personnel resources be devoted to the indexing effort. l ,l 7 1

g The system for. vendor manuals was reviewed and found to be in , h". and controlled.i The manuals were indexed, systematically revised, good condition. i- '( A question was raised by NSRS regarding whether ~, or ' not any of the manuals were considered one of a kind, and therefore, in,need of fire proof storage. SQN agreed to evaluate

F;,;

.p. V that concern.,p 9 i). D. Vatts Bar Nuclear Plant Irf ^% NUC FR and OC personnel at WBN were in the preliminary stages of developing a system for the verification of records completeness, t,-l indexing, filming, and ultimate transfer of OC records. At the time of this review very few records had been filmed and trans-ferred and most of those were being redone based upon the direc-tion given by the task force discussed in section V.A. and the RRI developed by VBN. The RR1 was understandably not complete and will undergo revisions as new systems of records are prepared r' for transfer; however, the format of what was prepared appeared descriptive enough to allow retrieval of information cataloged and filed under that system. Both RUC PR and OC personnel were consunicating 'about ' specific records systems and the level of indexing required. Current plans and e:1;imates include 100 per-3 cent verification of records completeness and computer indexing of about three million entries on both document and folder level 3 indexing. One problem identified with the current approach van ( the apparent informal - structure of the transfer process with regard to identified interfaces, priority for transfers, and for-mal acceptance of the records for completeness, readability, and retrievability by NUC FR. y -) At present, through ESRS requested OC documents on QEB source inspected, contracts, the records retrieval systes at VEN con-r D struction was determined to be very people dependent. All docu-

'3 I

mentation. requested was found indicating the required documenta-r 3 tion was onsite. ' Based upon the future level of indexing in the . ' l.. ELMS system, people dependency should be greatly reduced and time ?, Ior retrievability enhanced. c... :., .p Vendor manuals were controlle'd very well. They were adequately indexed and revised. One problem regarding the lack of as-built e-drawings t for:the solid state reactor protection syntes had been identified and'was in the. correction process. No other vendor nanual ' probless '.had been identified. One enhancement to the vendor manual maintenance program was the identification of those plant procedures wherein the manual was referenced in the front of a ~ manual.. ' The 'supervison of document control and vendor manuals 'section identified several areas where the section was trying to improve its progras:. E. Vendor Manuals i-The currently applicable procedures for OE, OC, and NUC FR vendor minual control were reviewed. They were found to be selectively vague in that implied responsibilities rather than specific 1 8

responsiblities were assigned to each organization to perform 1 the same functions. As a result it was unclear as to which organization.actually maintained control over vendor manuals. A task force was developing a new procedure regarding the main-which should correct that problem. . q. tenance.,, of, vendor manuals t :. JZ V. PERSONNEL CONTACTED s" A. Office of Huclear Power [ l i ,2 N 1. Records Officer, Doct ment Control Unit C. Cannon M. H. McGuire QA Analyst, Quality Projects Staf f 2. ' S3N ,r R. C. Birchell Compliance Engineer Y Quality Surveillance Supervisor D. L. Cowart i J. R. Crisp '. Administrative Services Supervisor Support Services Supervisor - U Z.jM. Kabiri. CJ B.' Kirk Compliance Supervisor !,.[ n D. 0. Lockmiller Document Control Clerk Regulatory Engineering 'r S. B. Miller L. H. Nobles O&E Superintendent } .o N P. R. Vallace Plant Manager N. H. Welch information Syntes: Specialist ei 3. kJ11 N R. J. Blevins, Jr. Information Systems Specialist O Administrative Services Supervisor R. T. Chattin Drawing Unit Supervisor I, R..C.j Beatherly "' Compliance Section Supervisor - R. L. .Sauer i .i 0&E Superintendent p .. ' ".s B.. B.. Willis

i.. -

o B.

• Office of Engineering i

O' P. D.' Anderson-Document Clerk, QEB .l Assistant Disision Manager 1 ,1.E.io.iBeasley.,,'.? Materials Engineer, QEB ,-* *'.5('H. V. s 3 <! 'jj i:pi', 3.1 M.i D." Conne r " 2,1.i T ! ; G.. FJ.Dilworth ', Director, Division of EngLneering and Technical Services

.1

j. r r m y. T

'e,

• W. C.' Graves

' Administrative Officer, QEB Materials Engineer, QEB H. V. Knox 'i 'Information Systets: Specialist, RIMS A V. Koger . Materials Engineer, QEB J. T. Lewis Chief, Inforsation Hansgement Systens Staff C. L. O' Dell J. V. Oravitz Materials Inspector, QEB J. L. Parris Chief, QEB D. E. Seeleer Materials Engineer, QEB J. L. Snyder Section Supervisor, QEB J. M. Vinebrenner Materials Engineer, QEB j! 9

h 1.ni i ~ C ' "' '. ' ' i C. Office of Construction i ,,", B ". T; t" 1.I,ce...e t ntral Office . 't is.'8. J. 'g', UI. < l .l:;,A?.C.'Kelley ~,, Assistant Manager 'I k ' ] -

, J.'T. McGhee

. Unit Supervisor, Quality Assurance Branch ,i i s.

i R. A. Pedde Assistant Manager

., y' _ l J. E. Wilkins Retired n

2.. SQN t

D.*A. Bateson Staff Supervisor, Office and Civil ' Engineering Branch 5~' M. C. Shivers Engineering Aide, Office and Civil Engineering Branch

• 3

.I ,. I

3. s hM.

.id' ..[ .5 j ,. R.IV. Forster Supervisor, Instrument Ecgineering Unit 1 I j, , ', ;. i .C M.~S.' Johnson. Supervisor, Document Control Unit ,,1 "2 S.' A. Luck Engineering Aide, NS Unit

• i

..,i, J.;E. Smith Supervisor, Document Control Unit -1 ..j D. Of fice of Quality Assurance ,o - N J..J. Enightly' Supervisor, Documentation and Data tianagement J. A. Mcdonald Chief, Quality Irprovement Staff S. L. Patton.. Records Officer . i. ' - t

• e VI. REFERENCES l O NUC Power Procedures

-l - O' 1. NQAM ID,.QAP,6.2, " Vendor Manual Control," dated December 31, 1984

, e a

su o. 2. ID QAP 17.1,'" Transfer of Quality Assurance Records," R4, dated ,J ~ July 10,:1984 = C3 ' 3. NQAM ID QAP 17.1, " Transfer of Quality Assurance Records," ',4 . dated December 31, 1984

O.. '. :i, i. ;j. ~.

a w '.' q..; t,u. w n,..-

.,6 n. t' 4. ID QAP 17.2, " Quality Assurance Records for Design and Construc-J. '.. ',. ~. tion,'j,,R1,', dated June. 8,,1984 E

• }/

5. NQAM ID QAP 17.2, " Quality Assurance Records for Design and Construction,"l dated December 31, 1984 p< 1 I ] 6. N-0QAM, PART III, Section 4.2, " Transfer of QA Records frem OE and OC," dated October 12, 1984 y W . VEN Ad:sinistrative Services Instruction Letter D-18, " Retrieval ( 7. of ASME Code Documents," dated January 9,1985 y i i 1 l, l 10 l 1 1

.g 8. VBN' Administrative Instruction 4.1, " Interface Responsibilities," !/. .' A R9. I '! ^ '.". *'.*'. "" ' N ..i J. 'e l '.

i-(6 1;.

[ Engineerior Procedures ,,qpg. 1. QEB-EP 24.37,'" Product Compliance Data and Quality Engineering Records,.- Processing and Disposal," dated January 22, 1982

'l 2.

QEB-EP. 24.58, " Handling of Supplier Records," dated February 9,1979

3. l.n i. ; e.,

f Construction Procedures 3' OC QAP,6.2, " Vendor Manual Control," dated September 3,1985 1. ) 2. OC QAP 17, " Quality Assurance Records," R3, dated October 1,1984 v. 3. OC QAP 17.1, " Quality Assurance Records," RIO, dated October 1, 1 -( 1984 ? 4. OC QAP 17.2, " Records Retrieval Instructions," R1, dated October 1, .} f 1984. M 5. VEN Quality Control Instruction (QCI) 1.08-1, " Records Retrieval," dated May 15, 1984 ,o N 6. VBN QCI 1.40-3, "ljniversal System Program," R2,' dated October 12, 1984 i4 f Correspondence g a 1. Memorandum fece H. J. Green to Charles Bonine dated August 10, 1983, "Bellefonte Nuclear Plant - Microfilming and Cataloging of I.! QA Records,". including attachments (DOC 830811 007) c I im ,i. 2. Memorandum from C. L. O' Dell to Those listed dated October 4, .j 1983P,pendor Records, Study Team Meeting Hetice, Third Meeting" c o s., I o' 3. Memorandus free M. F. Sprouse to G. H. Kimrsons dated October 17, ,~ .1983, "Draf t Vendor Records Study Team Report" i y;!. C.;'.i& i' l M.' ;.... ' 6-}' I;.j,' l

4.,.Hemorandua! free R. H. Pierce and W. R. Brown to These listed

. i d

dat.ed, November.3,1983, "Heeting on Vendor Records" (EDC 831103 701)

~ y ;,:. nt .-n.. e. q' 5. ' Memorandun from J. A. Mcdonald to Those listed dated Novesber 16, u (b. /: ,);l,. " 1983,';". Transmittal of Revision 1 to Quality Problent 83-25" i. 6. Memoranduis froa Charles Boniae to L. S. Cox dated November 17, l '. 'h .r 9 1983, " Transfer of WBN and BLN Site QA Records to FUC FR" 3', i .i (DOC.831117.001) 7. Memorandum f ree J. E. Wilkins to Those listed dated Decenber 5, q .1983, "Transf er of Records from Construction to KUC FR" (DOC 831205 003) l l 11 i 10 1 "I i d L

8. Hemorandum from J. E. Wilkins to Those listed dated December 22, 1983, " Transfer of Records f rom Construction to NUC FR" (DOC 831222 005) 9. Hemorandum from C. H. Klanons to G. F. Dilworth dated January 5, 1984, " Vendor Records - Interin Report," Administrative 1y Confidential

10. Hemorandum from W. R. Brown and R. M. Pierce to Those listed dated January 10, 1984, " Vendor Records - Interim Report,"

Administrative 1y Confidental t

11. Hemorandum from R. W. Centrell to W. R. Brown and R. H. Pierce dated January 26, 1984, " Vendor Records - Interin Report,"

i Administratively Confidential

12. Hemorandum from J. E. Wilkins to Those listed dated January 26, 1984, " Transfer of Records from Construction to NUC FR" g

T (DOC 840126 002) I M

13. Hemorandum free Vera Koger to HEDS Files dated February 17, 1984, "MEDS-QEB-Supplier Record Files - Heeting Notes" g

(MED 840217 005) i - o

14. Letter from NRC Region II (Verre111) to H. G. Parris dated N

Barch 13, 1984, " Inspection Report, WBN and ELN" (A02 840313 006)

15. Hemorandum from J. E. Wilkins to Those listed dated March 16 1984, " Transfer of Records from Construction to NUC FR"

- N (DOC 840316 006) o

16. Letter from L. H. Mills to J. P. O'Reilly, NRC, dated March 29, 2

1984, "Retrievability of QA Records, VBN and BM" (A27 84C329 006)

17. Hemorandum from J. R. Lyons to J. E. Wilkins dated lisy 24, 1984, o

" Vendor Records, Requirements" (0QA 840524 402) - 0

18. Hemorandum free J. A. Coffey to C. Bonine dated April 13, 1984,

" Transfer Request for Duration of Construction Records Generated i 5 . at. SQN"..: (D..OC 840416 002) v.;

19. Hemorandum froa J. E. Wilkins to Those listed dated April 13, 1984, " Transfer of Records from Construction to NUC FR" (DOC 840413 005)

20. Hemorandum from J. L. Parris to C. L. O' Dell dated April 16, 1984, " Processing of QEB Suplier Records" (QEB 840416 004) l r

F

21. Hemorandum from J. L. Snyder to J. L. Parris dated April 24,

[ 1984, "Honthly Activities" Hemorandum from John A. Rautston to L. H. Hills dated March 28, ~22. r 1984, "VEN and BLN Retrievability of QA Records (NEB 840328 280) F E Es 12 y Fr

3 'N 5- ) l ' h n' Memorandum from J. P. Darling to V. R. Brown and R. M. Pierce o 23. dated May 8,1984, "Vandor Records - Fi,nal Report Action Ites" ' ((I,I (EDC 840510 701) Memorandum from J. R. Lyons to J. E. Vilkins dated May 24, 1984, , j, i.,,L 24. " Vendor Records Requirements" (0QA840524402) .g. g.,, Memorandum from W. R. Brown and R. M. Pierce to H. C. Parris yd 25. dated June 6,1984, " Vendor Manuals" (EDC 840607 702) (: 11, 1984, I l Memorandum from J. E. Wilkins to Those listed dated June (DOC 8406 26. "2ransfer of Records from Construction to NUC FR" Memorandum from J. L. Parris to J. A. Raulston dated June 25, 1984, "SQM, VBM, Bl.M - QEB Vendor Records Nonconformanca Report" 27. (QEB 840625 003) Memorandum f rom James P. Darling to C. -Bonine dated June 25, r 1984, " Transfer Request for Duration of Construction Records 28. Generated at.VBN" (L68 840524 823) i h Memorandum from J. L. Snyder to J. L. Parris dated July 3, 1984, .] 29. to " Report of Activities" Ietter from L. H. Mills to J. P. O'Reilly dated August 1,1984, 30. N "Retriciability of QA Records" (A27 B40801 012) Memorandum from J. L. Parris to 2 hose li.sted dated August 28, 31. 1984, "SQM, VEN, BLN - QEB Vendor Records - Nonconformance N Report" (QED 840828 005) 13, 1984, Memorandun free S. A. Burt to Files dated November (VEN 841113 15 32. "VEN, tiicrofilming sud Indexing of QA Records" 3 19, 1984, -m: Hemorandun freo S. A. Burt to files dated November (VB3 841119 15 O. s. 33. "VEN,liicrofilming and Indexing of QA Records" O l 14, 1984, Hemorandus' free S. A. Burt to Files dated December (VEN 841214 .t d O 34. "VB5 - Microf11 ming and Indexing of QA Records" . It.. Memorandum free'O. Wadevitz to C. Bonine dated December 21, 1984, i 390/84-86" (VEN 841221 014) [

• 35.

"VBN ,KRC Exit Heeting Notes - 26, 1984, Memorandun froo H. Conner to QEB Files dated February " Meeting Minutes - Vendor Information and Configoration Control" 36. (QEB 250226 001) j 1 Miscellaneous _ l Reactor Coolant Loop Data Package on Iten No. 1-068 L227-0002, n 1. k Flow Transmitter and Associated Assenbly (VEN) l s a_ 13 W i f

? 3 ATTACIBiENT F NSRS Investigation Report No. I-86-129-SQN I e ' e i ( e l -t l l i I a e l I O W,u#W_m /* A 2 PP h wee

g. ,g, ~ ) 'i ATTACHMENT F Page 1.of 7 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF NSRS INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. I-86-129-SQN EMPLOYEE CONCERN NO. SQP-6-002-001 t

SUBJECT:

SECOND FOLLOW-UP'0F QEB RECORDS INVESTICATION I-83-13-NPS l DATES OF INVESTICATION: February 6-14, 1986 [ INVESTICATOR: / W. R. SIMONDS BATE / REVIEWED BY: As .I J /f4 J. C. CATLIN DATE 4 APPROVED BY: ' M./I' l E W D. STEVENS DATE e e t .I e t

, f '.. -~ ATTACHMENT F Page 2 of 7 1. BACKCROUND A Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) follow-up corrective action, investigation was conducted to determine the validity of an expressed employee concern received by Quality Technology Company (QTC)/ Employee Response Team (EET). The concern of record, as summarized on the Employee Concern Assignment Request Form from QTC and identified as SQP-6-002-001, stated: CONCERN: QA Records are not identifiable and retrievable. NSRS Investigation I-83-13-NPS identified problems in 1983 and NSRS Report R-85-07-NPS indicates g problems not corrected in mid-1985. OE, OC, and . Nuclear Power Records are cited. An NSRS follow-up review of Investigation I-83-13-NPS did find that corrective actions resulting from the original NSRS investigation had not been completely closed out. The results of that follow-up review f are documented in NSRS Report R-85-07-NPS (Ref. 1) along with a recommendation (R-85-07-NPS-01) that the Manager of Power and Engineering appoint a records manager to provide upper management coordination for resolution of the open items which had been identified. ,II. SCOPE A. The scope of this investigation is defined by the concern of record. It is that problems previously identified by NSRS investigation I-83-13-NPS, and the c6eresponding follow-up review R-85-07-NPS, have not been corrected for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN). B. The scope included determination of status and progre'ss of the open items identified in I-83-13-NPS and R-85-07-NPS as they pertain to SQN. ~ C. The scope of the follow-up investigation also included discussions with site and task force personnel who are actively involved in the resolution of these items. III. SUIDIARY OF FINDINGS A. R-85-07-NPS contained recommendation R-85-07-NPS-01 which recommended that Power and Engineering (Nuclear) [P&E (Nuclear))' l appoint an upper-level manager empowered with the responsibility, j nuthority, and organizational freedom to assure that records l associated with the procurement and installation of Quality l Engineering Branch (QEB) source inspected equipment and materials are assembled, verified for completeness, indexed, and stored for retrievability. The recommendation further stated that the appointee's scope should include all past and future QEB source inspected procurements for SQN, as well as Watts Bar and Bellefonte, and the establishment of a schedule for completion of past records. k

i l.*?.

.)

p ATIACHMENT,F' Page 3 of y P&E (Nuclear) subsequently informed USRS (Ref. 3) that an appointment had been made, and identified personnel who would provide assistance to the appointee. Following the appointment, meetings of the personnel were held on september 17, 1985, and December 16, 1985, to discuss resolution of the open items Identified in NSRS follow-up review Report R-85-07-NPS. These ' meetings are documented in references 4 and 13 along with speelfic action, items and schedules for resolution of the problems. IV. STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED OPEN ITEMS A. Develop an Intenrated Records System for Ouality Assurance (OA) Becords That Will Satisfy the Needs of Nuclear Power (NUC PR) and Of fice of Ennineerinn Desinn Construction (OEDC) Paragraph IV.A.1 of R-85-07-NPS states that a TVA task force 1. was working on vendor manuals ai the time of the first NSRS 7' follow-up review, however, two areas of concern were identified regarding vendor manuals as follows: A question was raised by NSRS regarding whether any of the a. manuals were considered "one-of-a-kind", and therefore, in need of fireproof storage. This finding was addressed in paragraph V.C of the report. Subsequently, ID-QAP-6.2 (Ref. 15) was revised to require that those vendor manuals ut%11 zed as plant instructions will be maintained as QA records. This requirement, in combination with existing requirements of AI-23 (Ref. 16), appear to establish adequate protection for vendor manuals for SQN. The applicable procedures for vendor manual control were b. found to be vague in the delegation of responsibilities. A task force was developing a new procedure regarding the maintenance of vendor manuals which was expected to correct the problem. This finding was addressed in paragraph V.E of the report. Subsequently, ID-QAP-6.2 (Ref.15) was revised to more cicarly prescribe organizational responsibilities regarding the control of vendor manuals. Paragraph IV.A.1 of R-85-07-NPS also states,that records 2. indexing procedures had been prepared and were in various stages of implementation. It was further stated that this item will remain open until more experience is gained by P&E (Nuclear) with the records indexing system. This matter is discussed in the following paragraphs. e 2 i

s .g y, 4 ATTACHMENT F pag, 4 og 7 Deficiencies Identifled In the Existinr. System B. Correct Implementing 1. ~ Paragraph IV.A.2.a of R-85-07-NPS states that QEB records were not adequately indexed and that there was some concern At the time of the the first regarding their completeness. NSRS follow-up review, efforts were under way to index and microfilm completed contracts; however, a schedule had not been Initially, a i established for completing the overall task. 31, 1987, was set by the P&E completion date of December (Nuclear) task force (III.A) for completing the overall task However, a recent commitment was for all projects (Ref. 4). made that appropriate manpower resources will be expended to 30, 1986, will be met for SQN ensure that a deadline of June QEB is utilizing a four-step approach which (Ref. 13). includes identification, location, verify completeness, and I;, j' microfilming of the records,(Ref. 4). Sequoyah has concurred with the parameters that QEB is using to

However, 3

( index their records (i.e., vendor / contract number). site personnel normally must request the records by Unique Therefore,' efforts.are in progress Identifier Number (UNID). to provide a cross-reference between UNID and vendor / contract The Equipment Qualification Information System (EQIS) numbers. is being investigated as the link to provide this This item remains open. cross-reference (Ref. 6 and 13). I 1 Paragraph IV.A.2.b of R-85-07-NFS states that all OC records for Sequoyah had been transferred.,or were in the final stages 2. s of microfilming at the time of the first NSRS follow-up review.. i 'Hierofilming of all the records underway at the time of theHoweve review have been completed. contract-related files and various other records were discovered by SQN-DCU personnel in warehouses vacated by OC, in SQN-DCU and j addition to several files at other locations. RIMS-Chattoonga personnel are working to microfilm these d additional records and have completed filming about 36 cubic Manual indices will be established for these records pending resolution of problems associated with the Records feet. ' Microfilming is proceeding on an h Retrieval Index (RRI) system. "as-soon-as possible" basis (Ref. 10, 12, 13 and 14). This i item remains open. I Paragraph IV.A.2.b of R-85-07-NFS also states that a RRI system was prepared but judged to be not totally effective at the tims 3. j of the first NSRS follow-up review. NUC PR personnel subsequently conducted a review of the RRI to identify deficiencies and initiate recommendations to correct 4 The NUC PR review confirmed that any problems (Ref. 4 and 7). the RRI was deficient in several areas and recommendations made to identify all OC record types and develop detailed l j instructions for the retrieval of each record. 3..

4 ' i Q,, -6 ATTACKHENT F Page 5 of 7 The P&E,(Nuclear) task force (III.A) established to resolve the ,open items of R-85-07-NPS has.taken the recommendations under consideration and has acted to establish a sub-task group to " rework the SQN RRI using original RRI guidelines" (Ref. 13).. The chairman of the sub-task group has met with cognizant personnel and is proceeding with efforts to rework the RRI..A date for completion of the task has not been set. This item i remains open. 4 Paragraph IV.A.2.d states that continued upper management coordination involvement at a level capable of crossingi I organization boundaries is considered necessary until the problems are solved'a'nd records systems prove effective. This matter appears to have been adequately addressed by P&E (Nuclear) through actions discussed in paragraph III.A above. / C. Clarify Organizational Resoonsibilities f Paragraph IV.A.4 states that with the. exception o,f a, clearly defined system for vendor manuals, organizational responsibilities have been defined. Subsequent revision of ID-QAP-6.2 (Ref. 15) appears to. adequately prescribe responsibilities for vendor manual cont,rol as discussed in paragraph IV.A.1.b above. D. Planned Actions and Schedules for Completion of Action Paragraph IV.B of R-85-07-NPS states that QEB had not completed verification and indexing of their records for SQN nor had QEB established a schedule for doing so at the time of the first NSRS fo116W-up review. Actions taken on this matter are discussed in paragraph IV.B.1 above. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusion l The employee conecen is substantiated in that corrective action Items shown in NSRS investigation I-83-13-NPS have not been completed for SQN. However, specific improvements have been achieved regarding vendor manuals, and work is steadily progressing toward the resolution of sthe remaining open items' identified by NS RS. i B. Recommendation I-86-129-SQN-01,bontinueMonitoring NSRS should continue to monitor the status of open items from I I-83-13-NPS as they pertain to SQN. [P3) t 4 -.. ~ _ _ . - ~ _ _

i a ATTACHHENT F Page 6 of 7 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED IN INVESTICATION NO. I-86-129-SQN AND REFERENCES Infornal Hemorandum from K. W. Whitt to H. C. Parris " Follow-up Review of-1. Quality Engineering Branch.(QEB) Records Investigation I-83-13-NPS - Nuclear Saf ety Review Staf f (NSRS) Report No. R-85-07-NPS;" dated Hay 28,' 1985 (A02 850529 010) Hemorandum from H. C. Parris to K. W. Whitt, " Follow-up Review of Quality 2. Engineering' Branch (QEB) Records Investigation I-83-13-NPS - Nuclear Saf ety Review Staf f (NSRS) Report No. R-85-07-NPS " dated July 1,1 1985 (L16 850624 840)' Hemorandum from H. C. Parris to K. W. Whitt, " Follow-up Review of Quality 3. Engineering Branch (QEB) Records Investigation I-83-13-NPS - Nuclear Saf ety Review Staf f (NSRS) Report No. R-85-07-NPS," dated August 14, 1985 (L16 850729 883) Hemorandum from R. A. Pedde to Files,NSRS Report R-85-07-NPS - Follow-up 4. Review of QEB Records Investigation E3-13-NPS.". dated ' ~ '- September 19, 1985 (Col 850919 004) HemorandumfromM.'M.McGuiretoR.A.Pedde,"NSRSReportRd5-07-NPS." 5.- dated September 24, 1985 (L16 850924 833) Hemorandum frem M.' H. McGuire to R. A. Pedde '"NSRS Report R-85-07-NFS," 6. dated October 29, 1985 (L16 851029 887) Hemorandum from M. W. Hadacek to H. H. McGuire, "NSRS Report R-85-07-NFS " 7. dated November 13,1985-(L16 851113 895) Hemorandum from R. D'. Guthrey to James P. Darling, " Configuration Task 8. Force --Activity Summary and General Assessment," dated August 8, 1985 (R25 850808 861) 9. Informal note from J P. Vineyard to'C'. L. O' Dell regarding transfer of DC e ' records to NUC PR, dated June 28, 1985 (B25 850628 002) Hemorandum from Alva LaMontagne to Nancy Welch, " Office of Construction 10. (OC) - Sequoyah (SEQ) Site Records," dated September 24,1985 ( A31 850925 001) Hemorandum from M. M. McGuire to R. A. Pedde, " Action Item 9-17-3 of NSRS 11. Report No. R-85-07-NPS," dated November 21, 1985 (L16 851121 802) Hemorandum from Alva LaMontagne to John Ed Hayes, "Hierofilming Sequefah 12. Construction Records," dated January 8,1986 ( A31860108 051) 5

\\ _$h (Q' e g ATTACHMENT F Page 7 of 7, 4 1 Hemorandum from R. A. Pedde to Files, "NSRS Report R-85-07-NPS - Follow-up. 13. Review of QEB Records Investigation - I-83-13-NPS, dated January 9 1986 (Col 860109 003) Hemorandum from Alva LaMontagne to Nancy Welch, office of Construction f 14. 22, 1986 (OC) - Sequoyah (SEQ) Site Contract Records," dated January (A31 860122 051) i NUC PR Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAH), Part V, Section 6.2 I 15. (ID-QAP-6.2), ** Vendor Manual control," revision dated December 31, 1985 I e Sequoyah Instruction AI-23, Vendor Manual Control," R21 16. e e I i g ,*g ^ e O g ) 4 seemme I 4 = 0 9 0 i

• e 4

l I, 6 e

l / l j. 6 f Q t f e 1 AliACHMENTC Hemorandum Regarding SPONSORSitIP OF THE DRAWING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND PROGRAM PLA!4" si f 9l 3 8 e l' f 1 4 g 9 A s. 1 i e I ) i ,o e I

..me.~.,-e.e m.. ,..n-8

?

l ,s h, ,, Dietleft. Dltpetor of Nuclear.Iosincering ,2 A12 C-K ' ' b3 h I ,o g W 'd ay Chtleman..ONP)ConfigurationiCpntr01'7s o a ). y Pdy.i?} I Guth 's 1 g $Qpp - ?g,%h v.pg:.:!pt;%.Ig. ."g' 4;Q ^ l i [ Q.,. p,)y. p). 6 nl ...a ' '. M.. ?.. g.'.f :y,. g { Qy,,

10A13, pq

.i g, IHE Dt.AVING MANAGEMENT SISTElf (DMS)TAND PROGRAM PLAN d .p i ' h i b l j3,.J f St0C033E1 g )pVhitedated4une30,198 p

k..1{Oi g f An$q My memorendum to.S.

4t g W:., 9 J4 q,6 a pig 4 VM*g l Ra .w tes y!f t29,g6sges f) y j Q .I Y aMya.mor.ndumtoir:vaC.nteell'dat.dt.[. .y o -- ( gN.841022 7$

],Dh

.,pm$'s,,ii9hg.l[ljij.(fe9.cyg%.:g.00 D N, Q, !

f y y;', October;19.jl984,s L4 .U.N 4 " r. I V. 7 9, ' lsabagesreatiprogram,' the DMS.ef fortis:ust: be assu=ed by a sponsor :0!. [g.' [; With.theischeduled develorment;of a corporation configuration i'lt '4

• ffaniz'ationfchartered to.irplement$the DMS Program Plan and provide i a i

.J. PiegiftitTihintenance.!::JIhe' attachsd-L Program' Plan [1dentifles.the s '. j i 3 dohf1* h ' Cro@gnatic'ni, Control' Task;Forcop (CCt$ Drawing 5M UN. '#1Y [ a ,.j,yyf.c ..qj bl'. *" % la D ffi f W D 7N t' M M k) D % Officefof./. Nuclear;PoverdONP) istostabild tg ascorpor y

E 16ce f,

+ foiflgir~A lbE%an' gementiprogiisUthhl thi!Divislentif>Muhlear ? J a 'j D. ? r [ Iticoi.(DMS) 'wideco:i::nendith 116silasj [E' ' ') 'jd . r - Q [h. yhk f WJ ~ DN3f @ state s,ponsorship.Q.iDMS I t. W.,N5%ot i 4[i % ,. 3Y.,.j 3 b 8 i [ 6 h ip.....fQ n; W %3 2gSaassumetthe respons}ibt ifyfJor;the schednie completion and MkMe?MM E ni G G,.t - N ' M.ift 8 D. Q p *dd @ f.. d r r .d D 'Q[ls:p144entationkoff thetqDX5/sssc=kh,.NIDb'N DMSIPrograslPlan.',' Q vl [. /,p i '

M I' 'Wh

[ .UNh N, e the responsibility 1for caintal ing'theiProgram for CNP.'kf/. i di.. Ly Pf N !!h'IcattlanlorsDMSlsof twar,e developesnt~.and't ikh khhhiffh. h h %'t D'c i..;j;p;M

. ( gf J g.

l The; 4 M Mi

4.. t. ' :

I. M1M%r..'h%@$j... wit h in: and lp r o v i d e d': by t DN E ttj%'p&g0,O % c i INfQ$5&.Q %;h. ! l h.i.um vi. 7 i 's ii. l,!',j'f. l\\h... 4, d. ). ? M S k th e ;. Div i s io th o r[httible a r [C6 n s tru ct io n iG h i - .<and the . T, OIhat M Iraqbirements(forg M3[andgbsTr}c{a,tiokt,and)1erif-Rtd 5.$ts..d1(etters/ydehttfyithe 1 asponsible';.f or th ind :1,t,y/,cf.datt,' ' ' q} l pd - D g j. .) ! (i ? ];Y.c.%c:I.N ; }fleids hat]they;pforldi dall!dutfMbo., i q.gg ,,3... q i..,N me.meeg m im AM%@: j;

• g.

g, ., icplementation of the DnS. Program Plan.. i,,1, completion,of$be. i!N;p,d,l r 6. The DMSG (or, equitaient) remain:throus the 1"i i ":p': ' .t

. % 4

""

..f ' L" '. : W,Q,' Q, f M ' N i i t; $l' ] [, ' @itichaelet.h i.... c.< s;8ealflentinue.'.9j @ hair;the'DMSo p[:or{equ.1 v 7g to;c ,}u thr5u'gh!DMS.Progras:Planicouplet16n o

f.,,

N , M ,f A bq.giMmngpp. n.myp h p r %E M @y p.zp w.gru.,.p i n$ 4 . g. gka s m wi . ip.3 7 'a m .gim.F mba l . f

j.. '

pu i i I F c '!P~ .', f 9, :iy! 4 1 J SQi t 8 % g t k @ $T h q ! r 4 N j;'s @ g % ~ d.,. $. f, h... t?k. 0Mbki w $...$...l.447.. b. bN. ? m, A-

u. - :

l +. N+. -Q 2 frh I W E B W M E N W i $ g Qr." q# % m a? M

ik.nww m

J w3 o, w = m-. m mawa m$mTd dMl min T*7 m wu

Vh. k@I { f {'j i kl g

• e N

fI6' i s 6 % W M o n,etc ; , dh, u i.W.,.i! $o e .wp. A m .: w 3ec oh{ow.it..n - ta 4 j ...-uj,3 p. .g., ' 14' '. i i

l..[*i;f..}. '.ston302.3HIF,0F THE DRAVINQ KA il 8 a,N u s.1 '";-

lR g I., r seg r P (M N G,,Uff % ~ ' o '/ {Y ~ key. ,j ch s'h i.Ilh 9:i. WQP. %': F.'!y' ' p 't;i u:!i!. L in l i! ' i'n.1Q, ; h;c : 7.g: > - f vm " < L ;. ii;P. W.iF.W' 1 r ~ gu i.h pR ~ ' U E. i .i(l',$lh-g ^t'd f N.) m.0; llent'. support both DNE and Mr. Scalf has 1 r..h {Uej,r , [', di,.., ,1 v. y . $1 0*Ipteclate the exce h..,39,c,$k).ths.Ta.t races.1rfgghj'"j. J.. > g.g'i;.t,,,T. ' / 'iflk~$k IM Qp....h!Ndn.)g~ a .l 1 d4 r-q !!'S l INi k).';% j L.] nn, 3 9 v .. m' "o , IWS e N. y ..#ty,..audp.s... hpe _g 3 (, j d.um.wngg,p'"Ig.4i. n p

u. a;.., :.D. Guthrt,e x

n y y)J g tl ypMM-

.:!p e 9 -l - a, i.. r.. "l}t b( .W ll. j l,i! t.;(d'f {; g,S:.w.p . : ei'ti ;; ff, '.' 3" $RDG EC%ui;I 4,n s., 'g Atuese nt...n. f i q smsnuu2%y i'h,i y Et@: ; nh;.e..t >k eti dittschasnt)t,' e, k 1M. r, M!Plq!jq'.n.'h U.M;l?., 3 4...j piH..;. tWwfoe;t.r. .i 6 N, i l'iH, ft{.i " S .,3 tW c y"l't ,1 hi;'w.Aterecendte,as ' 'y. c..sidd;f m t'h{ ;. r 'i J p .gu,N!j,1{ M&: ma4,pipryjpV.~ g j 't. j> f rFDarlint,., st.nj " 'if-T-

,-J !.

R. R.hEnnis',tVBM VIirlh!.P24N.45A-cka '.f. f $j:~!?; g,, j.E.,,' $. f;r.id i. U k, .,.! !':j.'1};1 p gI f Fii I, f )6 g? rti '} g ENK n

g)

. IE a.;necu11oush.'?13126:ss-c7.9.""&; ,.p<.id;.;.p:l,!;.3,.-W :,4, J. -[',. 1 !adsg;, telly;.t.ei4x.4sa-c!rv -Wyl$l. p.s% . t.pc.w.1 h . i;,:h [.hyg B 'o' $E , 'j %@h f u m m 4. s'. . p %, i, W$ I i o

p ~agg-i a a %a n,

w, # nw.

w g m h e or.q r a4 / d j W M $j,i r L @sq @$ a. a n i b phy dd sg e eg g$gpI" WEdR M 4 % f I < r, %ep4pkM 1 < s ?y fclj%1SMAWdelEh l a'.. (I.f dIlNEMN 6!; e' M ; %e h.sif$ /E 5 N&.q %e!- ./. y 5! ' Uphii!!.ij r I:t p!:i' i l I dn ,i' jdfMEt$ngdW S hYYYYhhhfhh

y .g gy ,37p ,v _ =. \\" N ,. $q,::p.. k . !l. h u.i Mi UI , rf 1 . d[. L i I 7 c-,;M:p'ih.6l%.Wp.qhu%jc-m.!, d :: y y.. q.s %. 6j.

n r:

2 1 r..-p'..n %.g: 9 . :. :Ci :..,:..y3 e? e % 1 :... . i.e pn y :n... . i. ..,1.T ; o . 3.g.,t. i-i

w. ;t... pie.

9.fo tgu. D} .a:n r, m. c . ; :. i w c. I .m : ,t

n y

pt.9 y @ N.s rp.rL:y,.m 3j $..- ?&....;. g ?hq. - w .g .is- ,e 7 h}?. t er.&&. d d d y,,...,.Q :.... W .J.l j 4 fi...,., ei..i Q!l.ii ~ j m-u.. i . q.. GiM%'

Qip L p '.i,s.d.,

',41tg9, i.i.i.. .. ;[, / ]q9p %q %y..i.' ;. p.

,;y'.y(

3? nt dN i.

' 0FFICE OT.WCLEAR F0WER

,MDyp;!.h.g[.y' t ? L p ' s,k d..h,i d'.. i@ ' E; e J : -

ph.

' T.{!

o..

go. 1: 4 4' i 1 .q.ij! ! ? ': E!. -.? ..O .f.@d.hp umING MAMGmE%HSM ' Nq.' )l. hy .6 p. u 4, g.v.d, O, T, %'O;d'6.N{%.....d$.<ish .T 1 l yu ky .. a a }q\\ Ng ]k,,3 .nocRM PLAN.:p 4 r ?? %e, $h? ik.s h..o(..'kI.u. T e* N.' ii. ~. ni Ii

r. hpg'fM,..r r ; '<'

s i . dg. , tl ..:.r..:'.iT( ht a e [/ f h "j$,f 'h ,, y',' t'.S !' a.- . Q,.:, p, g I 'd' [ 986;;,.p,qj..'..[. i, }

j?

j.ggyj] yzyg.2 6,'

t j' [ p d,N:ys.. ::jT. ;,.j.4 %, 6 6 !3 Ms .l s p, ) fp 'l M.;(.:p W Eg 'D: f qh. t. 3M. : / !M.. A d (.f.jkg ih.a. 4 7 l ' ' :;'f:.,:s ,f %p2.!!M u tidy";Wp DS;. :' 'A W ty,j h', ,P.T gt".i.:g/J.:.... h >. ! ! &idH j P t'[ k 0 f.mi .I:!1.:.

• a 9 Q D

r-w

.

r.pis % - yh i.Y h

[ l t IfI .ii .3 p g y.i,l%'5*.5 j. a & '.m'. mis.qj4y'N. f ha. iga %' 's:y I I': ', v. 5'p'h ;}'TT .h... U% r.. 'y

i.h.1h,aw 1

i 3 d 3..p. k<. &"N...d N,m em$W.'. 54.M.m ;.ppRi:" E -2 b'/ M k; j. M 5 ' U b N @v $., r. M,t jel N. y I.)h5,U:

d., h.;,:i$,.NM.

Y I i ,Ed: d L.Iy. 1 t i l L i

3. u y.y yu AIM Pi p

.n. -. 'Mc 5 i heg- . M. M W  ! . - q' ;e' b 'd.:Nais ( Ne r 'I M ii: I' g *le:"d t h. M ",'g h t -.L i .- w g n m q: l

q. :w r: h,. e pj N,..p F in..' g:.y,b* ;

t .. ;.. i.. ! . ,;.d, Q. m.. J-s; j Pri m; sg /!![.t.h.,..!.%:qi n 0;, '..d. i,9. ;... i..!; +! i -l W,q....i.t.Ctj o. 3 . ; 1.pA.f . p;i y. l 9..:L.w. g. a.,..

.1! -

.i.. ' i,. I :.;..d)!. {s e .m l ! s. ' i

S 1

A i,} y - .t tw m 9;p,m. r./pe,:w.4 I ,w.. 3 i ihn..~xm"hkq i a . @s :.I dh.e hei 'j fk .f*hb l-(.f hp. 3dk., /5i fNI h, j!Ihl.l M.'.p$g ,@i02JylU;jj l l i l p..J p(,h @d ? .r mvi rr ! f ' D'ij'ts -di 4 bl ,j !h I-i MCP ' 4 .j!.,l: f. 'h j'h f f .. d i 7 h p* ***p.i.3 - 'q$yEpMP i g. gpii rd![A L[ $ 'lii,b 'h;j ei- } El .l 5 !h 1 4 ?Mihi. - i. -1 ili! 54M po;;. t - per rgy r ge: l: ! % siSp$,.h !M I;il M.. p :C..JpIcsrd"W"6- ,A p M Mp $.. q m,, y it l - W hihNIMh.h, U:'!Md.d hk h:fiO [%9 b iiNG ..N-L p.b i.. Ud/ M6f: I .i l'i M ;i.li,j!I ,hl'ih b 3W hy$~. @'hthJ@?Nf h .bN.ii.'$O: W N,MTPOVALps.qt:^1's.t i l n&p,,p4%! 9 M : % ! W M % B M W M n 't.& i lWV- .,q;,Q.l7..,5.w, 3..L:s.,.M M..,:o.m t...-. );.r; / - ,.. -.. :1.. :

• 1.;, F. i. ;...;t. ;. :

,'S'$F.d{J.W', ?i;i^ ' R66066.02*..UIU:I*J.8 -4 d.,g..

wgc1 f tM.W, 4

m f IM.I I hhd6:h' h.5d1.[r ;.M. ( ;; [N 4 @,.W o. i t:~ " 2 ,f'n' .1 4.'-*.Nd.M.:

4...: ? /.:rl..1

i.l g;,: t 't:. !j

• ls o

>p- .i O i' 3 ^I !! I O.EE ' N%,f.g.g.:.:.g.g.pg.pgl.. 7pgg4 ".,..@ .h. Mi$p Z,M. 'I *: I ;i ~ 2[' f t

c. gp:

p".fj,iy ~/ tc~,

7 h-W m}vp. 9 9NM

g.

M 'fdfMdMSWW.Myd1%YV T'- 47 5' } g.m v i o w h i t M .:., f k Ti ' J ~ y y I' n 6f.!.. .,y.4 T!;5$...1g.r .q.P..a$t 3 !M, 3.4' 'E 4 6ITATVI:;h M,j(. .f .r b / k Y M.;. W p. d..f6 M M.. b ,l e t)r. p h.r.1 7pfh. 4 g v d.. s.: p ; !M%' i. 'JMMil,Mki'@ 4, 'Nh!k[.j.h. n 'M:: RIVII1 ,WU l 2 'M J.9 7 M h@.emrtotionorchme

• ': h;dd

[1 k (if $ w viiton 2.}b,K. l .,v. ~ este ' btInt' Issued 0. 'E!.II. i d 4/28/a6 5 6/26/86 fy.Ql /.,u.:.9 ' : ' "'hf..'. Revised to re 9 ' p.jp j.d: J.

8. d.g d> th %.h. d M g, h;i yfg [f.:i : ;

h

k. 'Eh

' vg., h6 g!8lV ' ,1,,$;.;jHansgement System and Change lg.h,y" $ sn interim Prostan untti the our Documentj t, "I 4 !.i cc,. r .i.d t kue hjt W M:i 87 sten. Program Plans are implemented { ;i I' d'il I.i O 4 4 i:r;d 4* t. d'd iRavise 8 cope of this Program Flan to. dy;i df ; p;k {p.:1 Q. M v$ph.t p.:r e %,o..!. @W h.-.- i , b.j M }4

• q3, Ndlh'" %

. ;;c development of,.the conrieuration control 1 L s: f r{irN.k 7.%'.k,s.F,Q; D'ci ;F;L. : O.! Drawin Hodule, and to reflect v V.. M f Y IE .Pi:.P:-.h.c. n,v p.g.. i' I . er san t e s tional, "ch ange s. 6..

p 9 a i.m!

Shyqy t .c-kh i.DlD k.,.s -

i. E..

k: 20 hk,. h,fM NN' J.. $..p:Yl.I.d k hhM;:. m p..1 i <. C .. J.'. i 46 %ggf,)y4%g@k d .i 1 Tn 4Q L ./: ,,. n.: :. .i.ew4 n,0.i? r:< d mtW in: 8' " i.@w.'TWh~db;p:h[h h.;E. '%F' 1,(Inii$ a W NQhp.dj p"n;:v aN. y, a ! d y.qyp Yk N mM gt.,W S.? Ui.K:.55%%$ u m ;i.. f.M 4 1

wMp.;mc. ;,l 4.'qp 6,:pp.

h Q y. h;r.r:pe:<:wN wn wcg.p a. m h pry m s h"r m

i. W :%" +"c.c;.M q:

,M,.;.p.!Av

,..%..ly::.. .3 m r ,qi p:.:f,.f@r,;%n:9r: ety p M

e d m.'.!

%.%.s...!% , M..; I(.b;;.M At.br a.w.M.;tdy,*.iq;.l. t *, i s. l '.: w w/;ia m.;r.Hz:

.;r g i;.!:;:.4 e.l-lLC:!.R t

y. ;d,;{. %.. ::: W ?; 5 '. : P 4 4 p driy44ji

.

i t W *j Nih[.M.t

" 0,. p' i!j<',v%g wr.1.' c..

p.,

W ): W *.b ; ? M;e; d:d.'J i .', U'; I Q

rc. y.9 6 C :% m

,.N<gr'F.M.g[@f: .@.'.D I n. :1,: y c.,;' s r n,~.c a.:...o U. d..t @:. b 't M.c.hv:..,; c iimlT m* , W. / <? bC,i-m :D 4 7dMf,'.r; t ,.n p :t h'4 f.'4*k. Q;/91.3,p.M.Mp : m W:KR]E U. B r e

3 t

i. s

. p.., w ' - ku i ?. '~'%,,y# r o 'f 91 do.T.ii y.ph.h, : .i~%. 4 rh d %N[k..h; tyr.,M ' 9 (!i ;)p,.Wl:n:.s,. a Mc,e.~tcM P,.4 3.I.c;;; ili:. h;N.. .iu,

$r

.s;

'.

::.i p:

tic. f Jr g m:i;u 4.~t. - 7 LpW I

'..-} ;

. p t,

". M'.h ',! f'Ali.'c.:i 3},.ry.plp: #:e $..,q:g@'y,.'":.rd, j 3 3 c:..;;ri. :.b!

,M

. ;. : p,E,

7 1 %.Ui@c...,p:g;t J :@O. J."f h N T ( d ::*. M f g.

61y : l ..:.t.<:..;$y".,p:;. , e 'i

c... n t:,

?,.; :y.'s ' t, '~ r,b* :n - .;>.m y%~ w 1 7,t:nd! $,g g w: 9 r.ali f:#F q,hvigtwnyp.::%s.. - A 1 " ms,it.m.v$' M3 ffhp% 'p%jM'l'h";il i :.l.!' F.;l' i'!; 0 i-N wdD:;iv.a ..,3 m;d 'I. p,

,. p i,q ;

.a2 t c Mi:.r.'.: ;r :: @;,,r v,%.c s ; m 5 rete.. q.*,; y. P ' s, 'ty p,4?4,m4 ' di?!U1 " y , 9(fp. j Lit i g .. I:ig:3g:.g.N::t st 3M "h.d, ..,"di,,.Sp.Pj. /:tr.,i ..'.::. W :W sl ' ";.y:.esbyrf.it.'.,:d ; n

• n.;.i.N dpu;.ph. e@'cq.us

..a,..f r..;. %: ". ;. . : p'.t !';e:.j' p:.':p g 1 ...u:n:::::f :jd. Q;p : .t y ' #<p!!@p;.2., ;... aI?... @c.q 3.. " ,J ..:: W.; e W,...- ,4 I p,.Crir.k;:i/.l ; i:, n ":-D c.4 )

• ' i ": 1.. g > :. d "

7 1. 'rm r.un, p..t,.'. / W:. f 'Ml N:t j

b. 76.@,k ~'4;"d: q!F ;i K.':

>.3 /; M N

1. %C L.

T r ,] J. -

..n t

W "r. ~ .a. . e 7., r,y!-.Kr/ i!.. ' :!.,; .*,s.., ";'! T 1..,..j' ;g 'i e 3 ; . r. <,,q .t " ;d, p,! te,:pigt. 81 h t...h.;l.'.f 3'.d ::r:i m *.3:.Tj! g::i F I :.'.).;,l,;."i. .c 4 '3 . ', :. ' w "f. d.1 c, '$ 2 I i-[, ' .4 " 'e ~ R46066.02 rc . M.. c ; '

t.f l.g,Wr i F')9 !,"r,

tc. I a

,;p* : r. t. t i i :p! Wi. ' pie !, N '4: <> d

s.

Mb MNrp."6 "cjk,.# i..,9 : u,;;jwr,ptjhi h.Mta r.g /h..t

1! J. d

" '

i ;tu. @1:j'l.p#)pb,.I',p*1..c E el l li.A tp FM55MiM.W N W W M!b WNW.rj ' W'

• D'54h"

!"'d e-mmmemummmw==wm

g_ ~ y F., > n " %'!T $! N.b.IIt;&d,i,"k. ~ Mhd[! 'p '"D1!.Jf. A !.y L.g'-R h, qqfid!r'% !..Si N I 'i.H;pp f) d &a.s:.:g t' d q. "'Wi@ii : F y Q s d.

@U3HANWHENTEmmt......m,.,u,4.,,,l,d);.i.,,,...

3 B s'.n.: . m.-l* f.jp g T Y @ d..rn. w,y c. +,, .ty L.,. ecr<c w 1 $.1

r i(!1.f.gy v.f q,b gl f

1t. pt m3;gt. : - i. m. ca,q - Q';i..!! 'd,i,N;.) $ 11 q;J.;p W ib"*!e8 C011t. '.,......... :.. ;. J.... ;.. j. l.,.... 1 f B W4. l ih"ii ',it'.t h ;n e ei[. L :i ';- 'i.T E. b:'!. 18 i .t E l 2 'id III.h BACKa touro.J.............. - c.,. 't...:...'.... 1 W]J-h>,iy y. eyty'e-cd '; f 5 7' - 9 4 'r d.!"! IY S Q ?

d St.j!h,s h'.

i W.M'.'"'M'~s: 1 "..,......:.:...I. ........ 2 .t. M 3 pkg.I.gPROGRAMACnVITIES i((h q :g[I/

r ($'.i

-l O'h ei 'd M M, h.d A d@ m 0 m m S......e.80FW ARE DE,V ,1 - h 2 t kl. / %L dj f-wJ,ua ml e., e,,;g; g a g .,,,,;.,g,..,s y ;, i p, mi q eW. M,. y w. %..dr'% ~.' = c" = "?i' ? i o, % ! n M? iii t

ij7

• 4 g.'

q &. yp 9sM. f' y;g,A,(ahm.cnoemwmSmmN 4 M gp . 4,<.9% n . m m.,., ms, 9 }!1 @e n @.f m - =.:............................. 9),;.9.I %g/.,h! W... k+ggry'j;:gryg.wr.i.e...c ,7. p 3

.n g

. c.

@y;y ifk;&'i.,.;jj v:;v.%;DMS SOFWARE DML0 5 /Myhy !h $ h; d 'ghurErmII: A,'. i.; E- . ir G r .A .r....., p M9 kip, r 6:" - ' ' /ypMW R>: ~.fMj.h.8;.k: ' h ' j j k W..P'j j.M,4.'f APIENDLI: EdDMS FROCEDURES IMPLDIENTATIOHc ','"Y,h,y 5.n h 3 f ic AFTElmII.C,".DMS DATA. BASE !I pHM :,. ' .:W@;'[p t;.M"p g

yc.v.

t.! f ACnUTIES Arm'sCEEDULE f 'i ' B. W L " J T 9 H M H N.l.l.' MM %4U h[/.r 1' 's. b ih@. WTi{t f k i D 44-r 'pn i y cA::IIM J.dd;,jihdfEh;'[# g ! gt. f:N,::fitdC-@,df PLDfENTATION. ACnVITIES.iM.I :i NI'M:'!'. I ' g M. % ${%g,jdhArm scEEDULEM$o. O Si 3 e ;> ..vgQ"$hrd;i ,i jg"g '4.g.w ip/ Ml +?. I f{jd$E,' w bM 7 [.W[%h@fg#puu'e;:aM. y:> d. j- ' S,i M !. @d. e 9,.. t c. v g. n.T. ti. FaM it00'! ..T g,., d ue ii i .y e f!BW WFMT 'r 9M S.,., I i h.cc} %p. w., i 4.F h ;:; w.c.:r.g g. p : d.. W y a u a *:.t~, N u.w X. r,W. ~. '4.t.g i t e:a m, r 4! ri t. c. .c. r w.p. !;h f / [ M e,f,2. i..6.h.jh? lH.M$.h..ep,.pe%..m,fI ,i.jh,..gr.D.F..' a.1,'.pp i d de M.0 b,ey y . t.g,i. dp.. f. 3. e@..y wd..,...ip m,:... r n 1i 2 'r 1 n..;.;.M f L u...t m w- .d. i. :' ii ' M6,.m.. q.i h r.O: e W;O,,.W.iO .3.o

o..s.,W.

. o.,s lJ f .a .f..e. ,,,I;diF, P c . j

P:Q.;g.t.1;.

L ' :l i V I 9'.5 d:f pdiU$l L'M,I.' 5..M*.J T ' ' ..., p..p 4.b.,. hj '" !M!;b* w:'Wi:d 't.': a.. k Mj.W!;.:w N? '4 ']d N.,tm.. w& n't mqm/{ww \\ I i t p g 6:e 6.. w... m n.s. M..e. 4 n..o Qj.-,.,n,J..,i o-naso 66.02 !! > ;;;!;;m:t, . m,m v u ' r.9 . ' :.s n r gg a *m.n.c m, w m W@ W:.'.0; Ei..: =r, ve yc y s W .:.+

.s.ip?q[i b

,:, @.:..-

. n :7.. 'F .. ~

..: W.. W 1

i,."::a u. m : r :. c; H ~ +, L- .i . e:i &.e i n. i., %; h ..; ; e ..t: :c. i, DAM;;w.c, nyhir.kMut@ W"i.! '.W '. M UE W.Nh,:%cvi M N4MN $. l, "J ~ _. - +.- n

.....,,, +.. (g..]h.h...y"W?"h1 .h A'@hh 8 $M q y v.p5'gTha putlose of this Progrs= rt.n:t.[:to provide > it.' M .. Me e..ecoe lished, to'proir.s.,4.and. tsan.d to.stablish andy :;h j'. k.l' w p'fiaplement a Draw ng Hansgement8ystes.(DHS /andl the Design Otange h .hlfd'hlp, ll ,e .h TheM @Q ' U %..'; ef Nh.c 8upplement' Pilot-(DCBF) fortthe Of fice ofiltuelear Power (OMF). hpip { e h[y]d j'[? Ihe approach is to define' the'elemente r W _AT.M;DC5, package tracking systen.ig1th,rr%, A, drawin 'D IPlan. covers the approach' required ;to ensure' i ? 8f. ,Il iG. Ji,', I ? and

M kg

. ; y. f' $'.! ( ~ dfM.!- 'k;*" @ :4d'd# $'6l 'O g*

f D

h )D,',rsliable: data base that providesethe design,' construction, and "' G![, [g lig j [y N $ [. @,jdg,1 d'a operation'orgainisations with the: capabilities (1) to obtain drawings

• p g 5; p o tat'us?.d istr ibut ion,
• ind enti fic ation, and,'cla s s i fic a t ion in f orma t ion irg W/,fi{.l.~ac' counting capabilities throughout the design, modification and s?'T4

[{(k.y[., I g, 6 / forytheidual-drawing change control method throughout the transition tp g f Jf. i ?

1. hgh:

the'Dealgn Change Supplement:(DCS)'changa control method. (2) provide ( .fy?. drawing,11mited document,'.DCS, and ECM pac age tracking and statusal I'3 k N '% lj ' 4 j{j fd N operation-cycle.' This Program' Plan serves as an interim Plan and'wlli[} t

r

' N. / j,h be superseded by the Decemt Management System and_ Change Hanstementlp [ System (CHS) program plans. ithses program plans will address r q-( g } fi d tcapabilities to satisy OHP, requirements lor document and change s... i I} tsani'gement,'* f or'11f e of plantil and'.f or

• integrating / inter f acing with l )'

M 4k hothir$DNP.in formation systems,' for,-equipment;,maintenence.. materials, g g( p planning'and ; scheduling, records andj@com:sitments. 'ji {di' r,A.'..U 'd p{ t 'f $b 3 l ?' p ,.!p d y $@11.:..[SCOl'El.6y%MM.'#. (l $ pbe r%,g.,7u rh, $12. D( % M % rMl % r @ i,M .. Q'49% 1 J;,.h y Q<y Q LQ W&he.t.n;irig @ % de.$h6G,vM'M.:c / w m %. pa i rg%}1his1 Program Plan' identifies andNetails'three'effortsi(1) sof Yhrig 'e,' i h',,% development,(2).procedurasiaridj(3) datarbasejintegrity'in place which jg ' h.$111dupon' completion,"! rovide'jthf[;,0ffice of[ Nuclear I g 5+4 P c and 11mited.documentTmanagementisystem.itolidentify,' verify, d ' h' 2:hdrairleg(/andsprovide stat 6s"f9 %((cinFro j hgM adountieg' for.ia11' change'. packages. and. l-h I hp y diavings M .Y fjh.p ., Y p7 111.h MCKCROUND (h,jfh;tM l. h M P % l. M f h.) g y % bK f' b 's}- IEQ;Q

i' l '[.l hi hI j

m.MPilorito!DececherJ1983kIVA's. nuclear draw {ng'prograns were supported 7' he i }N i T O,i' fpUWs@MP b ? 8 7 { /,MbyjfeightTceiputerizedLapecific{ purpose, sys tema d, Thess'. sys tems.'.W g,h [Mi 1:f ~ ~ d I p M.4Aand qw,idedflimited ic a p ab iliti e s h had (qu e s t ion ab loid a t a b kptdf sras'driveniby base. audits INf 6 J f !j A andf ss's'ritraining Jpoorlyjenfoi.ted; procedures.".Datalinifrequent,citatione h., fi h. werafinsiitiQldritdresul' tin \\!. andhia f fic ie ncie s.QQ,if Mf"}s%,J.W;[gkWi% %E% df[ f M@;yf b , f 'V &..Q;dil 7; l

tatDeenshrJi9837Dits raelimptemented;)tojoffer enline sceess for' p

h h...i [Yk'1EfdiisetionVrdiously Arovideditif three. engineering drawing t 0 ; l. ~ pUWdeslanerh eenstructor,Tandioperatert to sys.teenf.,l9the' advantage's%f'an,' nline 'echputer system shared by the"I i I o i ~< y yh. i F[- the ...J' c - f.% edratn:Wr6vedavalubthandysmn1984n. 'configur. tion F QBf h(h.f.%.s.coritioUna.Br 9 j-Y, h i. h b h k ? & h f h h f.h Yl system.1,4i n th.": s tni t e i ot i te s io f ! r:uc te iceirair.r' car'av isreann ie.e nt )h .'.hfkNh c $'W wit..w+Y h .I k ?h b, h hv[%WS7..',.M%e 1 F F R lFi" ' N n e ' *, .'i" : 4,. y' Q a

g. m p W.:h o.n,.p :, d,w, e :M, !

u j - c,.. m..yI-g i.o. 1.,av' s 'p.m.mb :a .,.Ml Mi. j p.Gppt.:.. W. mie g] WMiq+%M%G4%q@QM.ipfQQQlpg;qqgipig. gig 9gg94.f,4 w w er~e%.#,.so,4m %. gum m A. msg,m ggg 4 ;g

W y. ? y uppyg;p, Q )]{$hL$GNM ,i YW hr U~ I, he hNf\\. r.., : gE. .. I ifP:nge 7.ot"3,y k h w. 4 ,&. s... / Q,% frother0CTt.ialgo recoreended that.j'80f twars sprojetype'ba developed an y n 9 # t/. y ispivsMatedtosupott's's(pgleconfiguration;drawingsystemthat'q( kl k defines planticonf turationiend. its. design,' wJ ed I k i of design change' supplements (DC# , h. q,, ' l ' ' gelgw change' output in the 'forie.tgM8l subtask group'vas';formedit h', 4) O, E

4dlw, d

r 3 nforastionainsed(dand;todevelopandU0,,h. o f.h og16pagnt? and ' implementation ofc these'r

• l,{

f d," hg y. nucle'it:) program's desvlog }('of aqstandardised* drawing sanagementf 9h, / a>Q g! o. W prgp,qse}thetimplementation i .l w h,, 9p.jM 'j l 2 ,,uh; L'gt@ P W....;$$ d yi1D;. U f.,. i t ivit t e e lf"I ',' ':: q. kjN l { i.g f XY.N D' Prontes .i' ? M f/ ',. tin.g,mww"in support of DH8;,catergorize into three ef forts,'..]h fl}. p k q* J ,i g[Th('activitiessof tware: development, procedures, and ' data basejintegrity. '".M;'h .? @[8pp 'lg ifi J "V!%[~'.'U"'"5bIhf{., Nh S y IWT.'ii,+FN'IP i h, $ g r.,,' ,[ 3, dhh h' h5N hh,.[ I,y.yl.[r;ProgramRequirements, f .brovidedrawing' stat s and distri t on capabilities to 'hhh E .. W..lit 1 h,;.7 .,. ; n r o/. . q y' 7 ![a.?.M.g::),}}g.l. nuclear projects.4, h.,, t, +.f.,,L* g- -. ',',,.qf. p'.9 f f1al t c Yh t,.;;d.. : t; 3. Provide. status accounting ifor the DCS, design d 1 ,u,;, y e 't,i ll., p .r.. Yt j # Y f i !*' IPA, JU Q.;O'.4@i$ l y n 9,, g ,y s H yf ib(

1. f{ s,jk.,j ' ',Q~ W.3 3r gi r%%,h,""h,,/p23.,/.f Wf N c ontrol.'eeth f

d l,f iW....%. F % sh.h'O hc6:l! py.p m3',..% 'O..th,M.. - ,, g, l.t q' . '.3 '2 t @. W ' ?;,$p t-lib g,,h ":. 3f g h r-a nd.3 Provide, s ta tus.acccunting !throughout' the i 7 p. 4 .Ut:i,Ai$codificatlon/operatien~ cycle' *:.L'l;! D'X' @w j t 1 M Jft c. M. "'h'!i '"',h '! y P h.DN' 'I' p,h 9 4 h;yy)%;Ib'"Y'.MPT@d.OProvide for distribu fo@n(Y.@ f w h L s % Q(.' M(1, U W.ij3,@$jl?2)dI m M %", @ y w

I 'Irh.'.~a.

yc2,4M N'W,.W.#8#sgm,nd; sched 3,v 4

3[.

d /.

0 .. qm... n. Q % h. % ';.,y th!rg l M.'K,, r; .r mplementation Activitie a w .,I,,. I, ), ...; n '.t ;sy g *. [:U. f M. ! f.f. j.t t %y. q:. ; y v y. M. t. y :..g. l di'4pendir A provides4theilisting;of activities required to '. Th: .i.. P. v-y p,'.[_ i. ,, nii. .r. 'O 7" ' '* i. ! 3 k, ![,!Q$-o.(. B..ph(ab,ov,e[.,%i,[" 'l 3,!'l{.} j'.[7. ]Q,the requirements de fined g 4

• (b 9 f l

'j }1;.

• yj 9!N, h :N,D.U evolep;IUS sof tware to support 1 o I

'M ! d d d/ .. N.'('; Mi.6 lh, '. ' .i'; ; -lo,'f.i,y i ' '.:; ;..%;d,. ' T * ' i *,' i.,l. .I'd U:M:,j;.. ( );Q Q.!~!.7,;p s L.h pt I;M.. l.h 1 4 .p d..r v k 's al t JCl. y s, b.w. ~ i

.h ;V.

l.

]., T..r o c e d u r,,% e s *'*. < -, ~ ;;'. H n :'h.,.$c; a js.. Io "i a n il v. ... C. l ;;. ~ 1:. s se u.:; b - D if'"4D 6 f b;'.i)d b,;]*:' W@ !,'.did;p.d .$,y,v>p r*. -{L]m.c.f.'1d.Prograr y i . ' cy;; p r

1;l -

F, w U. !..

u y y h.r:r.rt.,.. V Requirecents ,,g s'9 I ' h**D.4; iib.$ Ngi k 7.H

.],

, f my,p 9 t .,A QM.j#N.Nr'.Y'f 0NP upper-tierj. procedure program,whicht ' 1.' ',. i'!d ga.fEnsure"a f iAphWH V I;4%.'

~ r. ' ef i "

.i $.. l}.t.!! Establishes'eriterlas to ef fect'a drawing lP.j.l,j..'th')g:h;lvi ~19,h - 'I,R I ,.j f' k ; <f d. F {;*m,

." 3 d.;d controls.dravIng'information"and. configuration atatun.

'h U 'Mt fidi,N'N$D.E!NN[.!,'U.N. ? b % g:. ' i h'N i !, -: f Tb;; k,,!fm$($M ;i@5Da finesf responsibilities.Wl,Wl h Wl'/ p',M f .i.s. Uyt. g. . g b. [, k..,. l 'l Hf'P;2. .!"i. W D p:1. @ [f M '. h' ,,(,.,,-.- d T;W. p;%'2 ::cf,'g'}k;,3. yEstablishesicrlteria:to:de ffne dclassif i m'y > by'k,i;h. i d ,3, s Iij U. 7 [7 3 Q,' s n::.Ni;l.lC i distinguish l,' drawings.R. fMW:q:.V"l';.l;.']' G.* - l' j ~ W('fySy u ' g M Mv 12 L ! ?',.m 1D j. ff"! h.d R W p "q:mw l 1 ti pq(jE.4e l. CtandardissNdeflnitions.3Md r, 3 4  : J.ji.hI ,j j~ 8 k h h;C'Q%'.i.F %W?U ',l ;;"1ltY1f.h !!,,T 'y\\. N 6 " lDC8 des P 48: 'j [ f, f W. 9 i; - g.. eg. % %.'/ Y. $.T 5. Provides forlths. dual-drawing and;F 'n '} I L {d )4 / n. F F (.. U.' :'.l control cethods.19'chs .. ;3 h.i.. I, p.N;3.Y',Ar, i.ih,T.;'t - g.5, " ;,.;. p, c, ;,,.,i

e a!

I, . ' ', ; :;. lL:,'2 q* f s ' ' * ' ' 3.n j ",'.:. * :. I,. <r f' .J ', :,, : p '... t. 'h p;

r I,...,..... J '.q,

<qy 2 &p,+ ;l'[<i;'.M* *,",.Y '. :. ' ;i %e - . :.. !,:. : e "4 4 Ri f .l . ' t M f"* r.). I' a .. a.. ,,/ ~' g , E8.d..!,7;. O -l. ,L t, '. i..>., :. a p.g 4 i tt i

• m:

E ( ww]w' I,. p.'I';,* I.. M,.WWllp v n m W, ..*g,,, - [$, M N' 'Il U-IN ..j: j h I ,t m.a... sic.,?.T:,* W,, '^ "C .'"--T

3 M Q % t W 2 (g u ta n ~.m ~eq m g .,y 47 i

i,

< b. i insure s.0NP. lover tierhad:lsposenting presedurs @e%'t!D.;! : incorporates ths.oritsyto: pod;,Qs.ttlen l M .:;;h~ 11 4.M.m. (l 4 (.y i, [ j'e.. "hqb4.. Ms.. q.oNr upper-tier p3tg.W.e,ql,g g d, i;y.

y :

f W'.4 roceduresp( p,. 4 W. .i:n ' sg gh.. jh; l. v ' ~ '!j ? k. tky ll 4vhich defines a stem capsbilities and provides operationalf A.lj 'h. ]g ..,! V. ,* ;j,]m{:(. j. .u.c b.c.M} ,.U ' i - ,9 h,g'y..$hiN-{.,.(, instructions,g;ig ~ tg 7 .4,. ' b ; '; 3: aq$1mplementati;>nlAotivities.5chedule.d i ' d!Ih .S ts.16.;,.! i *w -l'T::prgergy,h[e listing

• o b l..

g., k) gen +i'yp, o giera c g g i gf d,' [gS '[d l . i,,f,g. ifh ensure,x B. pro' vide s 3 'fAppendi t jW "5".1""*"**n ','P.y"' Y, procedure s to supp 'k.pp@ the'dayelopment of 'ONF g q,r. M.3 n d W hS.l. $ @,'y yd' W M: -h..d$@,j h' d Dat 6 T. ,'!ty) ]j],?[. ' d p/ 08 t rif.f' h N,', . n: $ CAL I f C. mW d;5 I., d ? ^ ' p,. Program Requirements j 5 I hjh. i'.,',k;'\\,..$,!.l., h.',,:'1.

.l',

[ I l; t i ' * ' N .'. 4.,J4,yhj +. '. f Define scopa,of the IMS and D:SP data base.

• M..l.2 g8 ',ph, a.

b i#'Ah' g ya fA Provide.ldentification of r andatory data eleme ,i ,I i 'Ihhg; l! .'l 1.' n t( b d b. D .*;l !.., }kf ' 'DE N' d ,8) h Providef standardized data entry formate. " 6'; , y, ; ly T' %Q. bg,Nlie d.i!. Provide,if,EMINVi.P' !. T 'y gg jP C. $P.P '.' .D 'P. I ilh};k'. a';DHS and;.DCSP! data base j 3 q.. (;) L' ,) N d1 ).tk'ggf.. h g m e m.mmq%sp.and Schedule %i).

c. kj,%:..

6 e' 7 E h i 9 1 '.P ' M e h,f p;y,f 'v.t " !;d4 ~ i f ities y n Qjgf@.d 9:fd 2.1 ImplementationL Act uumm : .:.n v 'd e.J I if 3.im% App e nd ix ! C,'p rov id e s,, thb 11 s t in g io !.' ac t i al @Q 'h.4.f# ',f C'W # 1 5 ff, hS.T.!!t&e the,irlintusnee":of. dats' base tra11 ability.qh . h ?Yd b ensur c fI h 1 f Y'.b y i '[ A.hThe ad r.inistra tfen' o f;DHS d s ! pre sently;providsd :by' the: D T l NIi Q'W.'.W [;.'@/.;;['f [ir.:! being ceerdinated,wlth',t j h. .'i,i" QNuclear(Enginearld'vith progras.develepeent: and!!rpleaventatica h.p f s f' Subtask, Group.],11nIsylditien', tohhe:rMS' Subtask Croup which has r e ~ M i if - I .%dh4 l ;I'representativesf fro =,all: user',organis f! u,. ' p,#g . design',icenstructiongandloperations,@ThCresponsibilityforthe[! h { s,h' 1 , [Idatadbaseilntegeltf)ltheiridrawinglinformation w .] fisldecentralizedivith'enchprojectproviding, i )

k. hind?, responsible Tfor Nesponsibilitiesand{n,'

f* hl{organisakion'adidd]rdie'I!4 I Appendix'D;prc@ ' L,k b bTi',!f J 9 i' ' blh:fi d fjff N, P ", I.!

1!I l

) 5h 'l WWINN.N > k,,g. W [b B..J[h M N E M. 7 & M q[; 8 '. B2 dan Resources f %v,1 .c .y s q > : c;; 1 Eh'Y d::7 Ik [ g QP Drawing.Manageeen f 8ubtssk[Sr a lman?... i t Group .P]/d m @. ih;,M R T %.i.::i {l ",'! gi: i.,i1: I f.

h,fnMWID$)ff3Syt1@NkMh j

y F iF A[M RnX3 ams .e tice s sts Hy.!ifF.,'iy h 7$u. a'ym..,1) P. clerk 1%,93'.'.!.!!DH...G.!.w.M;.S. h'@ 1 i? q7 m~ q, ',e'. pi; ;q . x..a y' & Rj.Brgyo 3 I .it. m le a M.,. c'a:f M' ~.t 'r Mrj 7: q,p &x l... ' o ii .i d m ec . r + M['i!.f$ k ,.$N$,$h,[ NNhh$d@M$$Mf,jj;pM, n. .,p ..t* ' d:l.' h yij mp m. ifM ~.*.' l k ') I I 1m . w m, m e g,. g % g.

r ,gg -4 \\l MikW o h u..: lI M )<< Pros'. = Aa*178t, m ig g b di p ' ! i' t'f . ~ :..!.. M.a.: %<. g. n g . '.... r., l.. :. i.,. i ~ ,, n....een in trat m.. m..... # n-tr pl. r mu sis c.Am.. .. (:$i. 6' *i.c'! e-vt3p Ac u m N '. 4 : b.. # y, M,t!.p;<S..,$7...,.. mm A .v4 :dd. 't: N1"!. f. i.; .f' ' '.uiN ' 9, W ntveskty.:the;tus coordinators.nd'.the.rms sofevare de 8 "/ ].,,, M"g,t: yNet:Nm: ~.t ..poe.. t 1 o t6 N *P. k, kaupervisor, meet'to review'theSstatus'.'of progranssing Jj'h, }j.' 8 3 %, f. h'Idjh:"I g i-Nonthlyjdatagutrycreportslara,$.,'steh$yh p hi 21 1sh.prioritiss f'h ipreparedpreviewed,anddistelbutedga{ GI,,ip bM y*D @df 'i h Tf 3 A pse -l M hlf al1$tH8. user organisation'(that! provide. data, entry) N h % ' pf ,j lg 'il yd:Iy l ;6(,.j c.{ct, .h i d 'c, .t$$ I CDh.!,y;. }. ~' hhj sonitored to ensure jcorrectlons.I%j n,,N":g,.f '..w. 4.. <

g s

• P Q,.3 l.3 h{f Uj.. g J i.

b i @!*% I i'.i y,'".,.%' h

9. /Ap.gMit P.,

T.. w .9; ,,. s b vrtq; u ro u n m ; h ' gm formal 17ir,,. Gyc ', r. E 1 ., I sonthly the Chaltman of the. Drawing Managawnt Subtask Croup'[dataTass' f.' i ...i'! B . base development, r'egio, tf tolthe CCTT,ithe f status?of;DH8; data? i.

• ! g/ l. hijP

'O 4 Jrityq8and procedures;developtEnt.74P ! l t l g Inti p wa..,m s 7, m hhh.ko.hh..hhhhy. WhhhNbfNNa_I h ame.hJ.qq%ah p aw....,.gpb,, w .m 49in s ep r a NOM A w. W<y;. m+ e @+.o;n y L @sm M

• t

. byy% r. u - is + n ~ m.- r buba h I ,%w%$aml!!$NsNM@ c.4dqjwJg@ F'w@w:mde 2 @nji U W 4 e n"i @e e$ $.iE 4 n iUS M.hd 8iid wh 1.: .y p ig % Qg!$$?$ra? *. ' VNj np,:id%. e g b.O m M d i s!s 4 .mmu. , v';iii Q Q i e g .f?iW!N N NE%lf. 1 .t m: m m v.me.% z,. m9 Q'p p.O k'f;,6f r:r.Ljf#.:.je'.4 b F 3 M in t i.d. a g$yM:Wi e, r W'E m: y,.. ;, '.: v u:An::. 9 c; -Q ...n j . f.' J ;f hf: Pw-pvi. : ,3 3'f:%7.:rf'by"" up hh. %I;!M'pP.- ,.n n . n g:. $.......?..i)a'M Wijd.. iM.pk?.Mi$ t U M.... 06... n iIM-M bh. u

u. -....fq. n,,.#, _$..i+d,!.j!.]i,F..a.if.t%

,* h M P ,h b.k' ! ! D I $ ' I N 'l.'. I* hh. '..N [ * $hMNNMEi UNhl:: I. 3. w.hs03fh[b..$. g .b; ,.)* , m., ;., ,y), };; " >. q v..p e:7 q ' ' If.I } D,, t'-~'M h. k '.*. 3 $ s p ' $' $h, h.;.: + ....s a f 9' ..:.. Dw ag .l-i H "', 's. ' 3 Q.,,; v V. ;.?w:, n:.7.-d-; : ~. t &, Q %..; %. 6,,:t*1, m.. i e 1,..s.m7 .. 2 1:.tl' f h:f t ., d$

i > p f..,r '.,!' M' i!,

p,., d.l., v. : i. ...,. 1 ,9 n I' ' i I '. 4 '.!, 3' ).'1 /,'," I y , ?)().d k ..i., ... p.L ', .o; y.,,.. 1 4 j P.M ..~......tc: o,;. e, a,,,., _ a, z.' ";yyg ~ "A %..,w;Y., -l =

fY Y p h.h&.w..r-*Q~q%my.w.,.d 1 g *..~A.n D &.e k y,.g.,,4, M.r % n.,A:W' h .c.a.,-..- yp.- Ma w -3.te v. .o 4 gg W R & [ 5h- .. - - w. - t D.*.$% -$;'df 7 b } } WyMP.4[M ~ * ' - * ~ ' e :. -ed...w r. ~- w* Mr.w.yT).**.3. 1 M.%.,..Q.n..g}(m' \\*q y -T" %:,}. -M q SO M u, a.,x.1..t. y.4,-,2,.p~, c.h, %f

• 2.a., 4 y.?.ar.t. -.e-O.w. p v,..g.

4.., b A. 'I r g:>..-.: .a ss .y..;i .r.- m ~..p 3 p m, ..,..m.. . p.a ~.- - .m ~ w f.:+- 3.,, .9,y -ft. #. N..p/ r - Sche., s1e CoopRa t ios -- 1-"' A *_ *-.

a...?.,

-

• Q;.

..ye g. a -..>.... c..+., g *t., N i c.Y ,7 --e.g.awm 4.c ~ %r 8:".r z....s..%,:..- n :x"c;n&.:y p, v TaogetMSt2eien Actlvitis8 gv.u g *;: _. -- .q-. .. n _c. A*x .r 4-y 'S,., #2,4 cM 9

.s.,.e..

'=*".C ~a g r,.,. ..;.c. - '.t _n......, %,.- - ?u y-7. Ey,f.g. ~*gm" -".,h. n. !,..t b, ". i..Protrs= Eee$Ir.,. u=- , w-W:h, __% .. :.. :. : 4.~ p.7m y..v. o..... c. Ac.-., 3 '.nev. elop number. -.F.M.-1',: 3.< u. ~ J....- W.. so pts _ts .,m... -. 9,

scyemes go a

in . m, e - ~ - c.. r =. m:. 9* A w-p .... =,..,.-..

~.

.: -~... .,.:; - C. n. r.. ' 2 tr r.,.:,.d.w..ynA-~ :*~*w.

e. ~4

. A e ~,r -...-s,......4.w..*.r

• a -
• e

+ .a. .v 34...aC. i:+*> ', "..,: ue,*.." o.f.".....* **Com. be. rde'r Ar=hed 'Wy-' O -**..7....s*.m,.,. * *u. J..s. .e.c ?8

• y

.?. ~ i ~ .,.b.. ,.s. ~ r- ... p.f..c,;..t ran,.g..,,.-:- c. en.,h.a i.r..TVA draw ngs .,. a.-. n...w.,..: .t. g y.. -.., 4". %....,. !--er;..e #p'"..:y. v.; v"idor draw togs w.'-- - : :. 4 u-.,s o..~ - N*_- b( o < ats

.~

-.m ..,t a.. - p. t.t - 9'.A-M.N. c. - f"w.:.2.c.,#"7 7A d ocumen t s' ".N'..Y. :'.~ ? "W"' ..H T8 k. d* E**"i"*d '.A_ y;A.p m '.

w..:. e

. s;q m M #~ ~.. : g. t8

u...

o.,; . % _ :.m... . -....,. j,., T.. Vecdor.documeats . =..-...T.o.qbe determined,.p~v g7,.2.g.g p.g. j; ~ m., +.t. ~..... r. _,.,... v. ....s,y. c, = -. 0 - ::.:.g-.p.:.-c :... ,-y;, - ......i-.. m..c. g< (;. .. To be determned,u-.-: 4.,

7. *

.-~... ~. ...u-. r . ~....... - -. ~....,... m. s ..t._ 4.-~<,pe,etop number seheses.for workplso . 2.e-. .,y,- ., - m- ,, u,,- ,... ~...._.. e..g

s..k.g-..

-..... - e u.. -. 4,,.me-m v .a r ... n -...... _....... J :.,w~_.,... ;...; 2.....: y >.M. m.,c.g. : u.....: n. p. tr aek i n 8 . -...... ~. g. ,,4

.,. w -A..,. h,

tM 5 . r.. -.. .... : :.. ~, - y..., a.:;.

4. %.,jc.r.;,.w.-

2 a.s ; ...~., c.; ;<...:,.w.,.. ~. r.n h r . Conplata - -- u _. - *. s.: .c . g :.... p_... n .. -....., g.. .s .p.s7;, s. g ,g h- . os.....gg,%., p.. _ (c g ; gap bssic DCSP softvere. ..,;.. y..g;4e_y. 3..r, m. :,,sy&g k ~. v... a.....v ;.~ pdyK. Lw.y4.m. : . : s c.r.. -. -.m...,.... i

h. g:..

~. . : e....r. ?.,a. s. :, e., m.... r*s ,w:...5-a.

. J.,,

.m f c. u.. vork P.lan. a. ta tus.a ecoungi.n g...

n..,o.n.,+.,.To, p=b. e' ' ggW N.::=;:.v.,_m

~ m.:+ y ..,. g. 3;,;. ..-,. u. *.,,'.-.- y. 7./t. - %.. -u :. s .*>t.. w. n. -. * - e - / s.'..- w ,.7.. -.e.;. .r. ,= w w, y. .,.n -.m %v '.. +g.u.... _.. m u. t..,.,-..

g

.v.g. s..a..._- -~~ ~ -:~. #- s. M.. *a. w_-?.: + m 4,- w. 3. q-- - t- - .. n .....~.D .,. &: r e <m.u'.W.n..w:.w.. a w,,w,......,. - - 1.g,..,~. e J..u..1., r ; r 6,n. eve op -r. a,,- A m u s

.p, :._

-- - ~, -.:. f.. so f.tus r e.": ,..m '!k.. -. n ~4 ~..~ ::- - ., m.... .e.n.-.:.~r.c S ~> 1 w-W r. :..r .., w.:,.: a. -.,. d.m. a:.. n-. ~.-. a.-... c .w.+_3)pm.. w:.. - ....u .- w .. j;.,. a. :,.. .. n_ ~.- r m; o -- r.m.A.^..w*3.;;, a: . e scg80 gag e.,_..... ; 2.w ?m ' . =: s_e -. 4 . a. ... e.. n e. h - -+. - -,.y eh.,.a 4 .. -,a.4 .,.- P as ".the..DCS change control.

m e

o 4.d. ,s_.. ; u..

z.. uy =_'. Li.,..nm.r,..,.W~n. w--..--J.;er. r-- 7y.: Rev is e,DCSd eve lo, p e.d. m.. ~.,. u

.r., g 3 . -,..; ~.g --. r. ...:a. n.. o.= -m.. v.n a h

m.,s

.--r. .v.. ....,+.,... 2.a w. r ~.. m .,s.;,

• 4 :r -

,......,..,.. w method 2is. ~..,.y 2 .~., w.w ..r. ...,a....._ .....u,.+..-...s. .w,........s. ..r.v..y..........

g.3

.a,... .-7... -& $ ;; ' m,..- s .a.m. n. u + ..... - s..,e z. < y.,aa ;y, a, -.a, a,.4,2 : .~.,~...V...~.. -..,. -: a'.a . s ~.. w. -p. L a.s....... r. ..s....:._e .r n y4 .. ~. -. s u. s - ' :-/.T.. :--- *:.':, o To be deterstned... ; %;...,...- .r: 7 r ?,; -* :, c. 4 -- - -~~ :,. - - -*. i... 7 --- T : - - - '.,. 2. :.:.. .e..,,. ut..;,;7. -- - r.r-- --.........-n2...- .,. T 8 ..a .. v ....,.....s.. ,,.4 gdyg.g ;;yg*tpg*g . ! g *- as . -. ~. .i.t + n. -y ..,., q' 'E~ty'/;M,--q..

m.. g;.. e.

q Provide'. distribution rece.lPC. %'. 1.*;l'.pevelop distribution rece1Pt E'. S 'W : :; .%...k. e -. :-+*;. :r. ':::a.4 :::.,. ~ %.. n.e r... --f W. m....-acknowl,e..dgement '...a.'; es', m.- -- y A -.

3. c-- sekodWid8Ef888.y-. y.

-n ik gg .,c;;,.:.,3u 5 ,y-d.M r .,,q g--- A-j b !$ -N,.' . u..%,.,.,+.....r.-. .-+ -),f... r..? c 4W:.....,, ny .... ~ m.; p . y p d% . &,'..... n.....t. w,. -.. - .,: :q;W a 'A u . ~ 3 ',,; ' s. A...q.? 4..... S -. c,. ;. PE, M-- "'*:.e:p.M k t - . '..... d ~. - : - F,.M7 5: -...E ..~nm.-- - r m ~.. t.

j....

r-s ;:d . -. ~.. - - - p.u-v - . n yq.r-n-- ,,g ;g. v. ..e... q: .a _ ~... .-..s =. 8 ,f z-s o..g,...dv _,f wwf_.[c...- . ~........ R.e .'y y2 9-= ,._ A't W '. e. ? p ^ - M...:,;Oy . a. .,v,, .=< M +. .(m. c. .a. s . a,.- m . - x

s. ". e.-M w*r e

t .........,...:..;...;............-v..aa.,-=.,, .s y. - m, w.. r 4,g g,, a.[g*. w -- % M. ..,, y, .4... ..u,.. Q>,A m,..... .y.. r s ...,.u.;,.,... ...a., .m. - m, ....._a.... _..... .,g., 7. o*.L_. e. g.... t. J _._ .m. .;. =w 4.,. .. m..f.-.. s. y. +t.a.A ..4.3.. ....a..,u., as w. ..m.. n ,g. .p - :: =. =:: ::. :_"; m , y y s.. y .. --. ~. _v.-. :- :..-.c=:u:... =. :x :.- --~ - : :. :- ----- _ -::,=: c... - .-:.w.:. . ;.w :=.a. w=.;:..c.: n=.w -W.

.=-

' :.4.J.+.*-,rJ '. O-.%. 1.e.3 L- ~ b ' *.. :....:.:..=.=... :u.- ,:mE. *sMN.3aW NiE:#w-$3*.Mr$ _ _ ..:.g.,.@ :1.'.U5*." '- :~.-'d.'.*M:? 2 :.DM'i!*.'-, gay .f i .g. p 4,w w.; , i. p q. g.y:, .a - ~.... ..n.....~.. _ _.,, m m.,a.:.,, g. e 1., =..s.* . r.m,.,_, .Q ..c.._..q., ;...,saq .j.. g ..g.p zw. v.. 9 g.._.e ya*g %~3 u

e. m.:y q

..... e. a ...E - ' ~ ~ -4 . c

..:r.2r. ::i. : zw; w :% c.

w

_; e...-.:. 4.:...

a:.-r ::.:.-.:.:.. :.. a.= n.s7 c.pm.. w-u: sp M"s'w'"e.m8c.m.r.re.W. ..q"'-*c'"e" f;? .P ...::.1,. 1 ..r :.,r.m/:..-. .y .g -- -- m. 9. . w. s.. ..-e

2. -

%,...~.f..,g..i.m u..., 1 di."'N R:. ~*, ,,.@'y*g[yg . g.[;, ' O"/s' ~-~~I~L*N':"* h 2 ""m g .e

• ---~.'". " * - :0
• 4.~" - *. * -d.*

?

- ; : G3*."1

~.,- Jy - P.,*. 1.. "" T

c = = ^ ~ w wmm.vg. ; w g; m;. __. ; ? 4e y,., -,. g y., y,. _ u .r. 8 y@ h{ r b Qg I s. p m'r:.C'glggg.gi,l]t*2 hrP $. @.[ : rd %g (Il r. A W. @i I I I j.' q! q. h 'e h..,i. e.; .T .I,I,I.

,{)

o~. i W,',.'. e, e.u. ) <.

• 1

'P g n t + '.1: %........ %, S S. 84i J MP w.a.. a>.. M, '[,.:tt'.i.< A 1.[ fit d . h'hi/di I f, @* l; ' , g '* j dr.. e 4 h [ ' * !r, Js 'k 'E ('C {t f. i ! I; '[ [. 9. :.g ?.g c, J. '!lh.I I y p. ; L.;, iJ.td.'.'.,-c 8 ' i ' -i 'i M,1, ;y *t!,,'.

4. :~. M.

/

• :4 t

s t v;M M;.j ?,f.. - }; 3, 'f

• h.. [.I s]r

,ig [&j - h. s 4 y ...t. r g4 ngrif, :hd,Yn,g,$h TO k4g (:.. ) (* S.h .'u tl } h kI Y $l ' $ 'h ' "M !P. 5-(.:' 1 jf,*"h!.0:' /if,'i ' '. / -V.' g ~{.%' 3 J Wjf' b. S' . u # 1 ^ .F p 'Yf A'!: .E g f. i,

• f>

i: i ?.

• f 5"'O E 'aI{ '{. 5

,l .g ' in -Q .[ ~ 7 ' m..+ t i, $. i. ., 4. .ip:c' 2.. .1 o. 7 w9,/c R. e X,f 4e = 8 't 1 ;e 1,. !,. 7 3" [a {. ( 'S ! n".".8a.jd.h .. e 3 ",. .t a S n m, 7 i. r kl..":y.%; W;%.G..hw%.f,2 gRM y s '.lI' O;$ 4. E N ei % p.:s: a a

Pg :Gg NS

g. l.Ju !Mr. :J ' Td 4 ? : b 8 G y...

' i r:dd@!Mh@ k E $' i p: h f5 #a E8";%w.gy,htf L: T U 6 'iJ.a: J :., g...; = pf. y ap:p...:; i. :' ; ',T.9,tp,hq.*im.. r...

p.... R,!.,e.

t ,. M:;, v;.. o m

r. X = W,m,; ;.

f~ u- ..:mH p yjw:ac h..g,,p.p H:o n.s p p y;'t.': 1:::. : n E.,p(. ' ' .q #:n:.e r g .g,h ) r g .k. 9 1;ih7 ':l # W h, 5 M. k. -,p !' n p0, h ? q .hr/ k . e -ld.b,4, pf. 7'N@!:Y.! b W, hi&r*ih,%?%0 @:% l

9 l

.l b.4 h.O,:k;iinQ i W W;;i &d :f M t pY.c' ?.m. M' 6 %l1.! t Mi!.MM. y

IcO ~iF.! Sj M.,"-

. C ':

P "f;.., q' j]' ~ t W p"%g 3 :,m)]. !,:%. :v. r. .E

k. rt m:,<%.jf./.W. g a 17 p.j;q,7 Q.:.::ili J1.?.p

e.f :

z ti W i. i <c. m 4 M;y"15.. y.'yjd"

t. :

.n Dij'l si -Q

2. m?

l i t- '@W"zt@V..*u d'b,,':7. t\\ ( p Lh2 rf h t 'rg:aV!:m><hg; Q s-n d'.n.s 8 c'- W k ' O , a L;y',r,gt. W.m. R E M:% 5 nM 3 .U -w: i 4.5.r..g.i'.g :p q g:i n! q a b m 'a. W W W ~W 4 i b;; d y M/. 9,,. i, r.g...@. 2 m p- . Ac.m p m. a gt m y v c vi .g ., g o o -... 2 4 '3 'i ;;fWb.n w tf,.t.. g[.. : 5's EW.e, d4Pun " _g y a qt. s e..* 9'r. M.a 5 W.ta. n y.wtf WEyv>TSal M. R 5s% a.g d..

3 k.g 8., M. hiWT

F i

,0,r. ;cq4.gh B .U' Jr .cd r Q'.a t r3'8.on:"m.. :.b 5'* 4y ~ klas..g b L-s. c.1.o N.hi,lh.$$f'4' $ 'i ! ' ' w E.5'.5i**.?gbfl V I g s. 5 2.D'f.!.c.4..@gW5 0 AV";. p .. lW:...

k. R.:o::i

) :. - q. G.E b< J. No!gi.u g i u u. l :1 ; ; I

• n

h. yg-..

1.m L " j;gla f.. bv.....

• .u, n o ks l88nQf-

'"=A! *'~' 8h f a&*g,t..a,t g G V o g~

I' f

=:1 n - d..;.;. g e..Y.?;.e v'I *E.m.q q,i ...:4 0 J Il !

h, Q ;^3,5 W b h,0. W O W L iBbh5k Ji i hy o3.

n

• j m

., p * ,t. .i. p g ' W $ b b $ ; $,"g o ? s -w= a - u-oa-pret.m. i.f. ,i kN W U [' , JQ E 1 d . t $.,..n;S;b.,4 MK'/M5w w e m yN:. %y., h ;. M,. 4hiEll!'.'.' ,, 5. 3.!s:,$Q.!.] ^ T fmpds l I ([.y%{l&.?p,;%*t!:y#f.d@.-RiyJdi.'.l5W;!b

p. "l'd' ' .'d.P !

n a .JG a '.e [( g,.q....g" %,.id g)p;t::w. :~n;og(g7,9yupwW.dDMM.d # J.,8 t

7. ". t.6 d.

h 'f. d7i [. W H.A" l i : .p.r x p,.g y lu:g:v!.e.'It r ..:.. : + Tp.m pH t p,,,. b ..3.c.,m u, t., c-r h ' i',-: W.l?. ng.tv-. : ; n. ~'- e-T o,,.r.y},;t..y i ,v,.,! n . x.. f7 .,3'j ii.1 4 '. I" r.. :o i;s....7. ,.i '." ji:...A'.i:l,+.,n. s. ,w f !c,.*' b $1 .0., i. ~j.!,Y.R@. i

d 4.J2 L, $. t ;l,'.h.%......t,.#.....,.

.;,;1 1; '1.) ' '.,J-7 'f. .. :-+ qane'l,.y. d 'n.' e,u,:-ci', Y M mete ..f r 'i Wm...!.1.: i g-mo m A.L._c m.,w w::e s weaant waw@ m p.rushp mani m

~1, I h t nw R4RW W-n - w s%$u m @k:" em%.r._q. y ea m mawj*"m.dmst'-m..rt.zxzrrxrion'A.c:1Y.ITIrs Am,senwIs wm&v.mm.,ft.

g

a r

,

m e uw . DATA, BASE 1 - N.y.; f W,,e.r* u.,). g.;r,. -.f grygEII. g M.,.:- - 5 a, f - '* y-C;--y.p. -,ees.r.... ;;G 4- .ex .tw..s %, e' g.s,qt ;-f.M. <.E ') 4( ~.,.... -.wwp, ,.,e.g:s..y~c. a ...-9 d*#'***,y

• .y

M.w- %$=y =:-* h*'n'.tj-s'=-;g.c'*z.Oag'e w.'e't

.z - ~ 't

• ~ ~ ~ y.'se..C..

-.p .pc e 3- --e$'- s .. "'r* -- r

e. c.. :..,.:. a......,r A.s,. -m g A<r.e Cs) r.r.:=n*

[. s, s, w. %. g m -., ~ .j.. =_c -m..'.u...P:* e u. cy *. r~.~ yj.d. g. yye;,: .s .s .:: f r,.:a.24.,L.,., w - ~, u: c-g.g.,s,' m..% y. !;;-

u.a..

y. .. u ~:. u. 4.<m...---4 b c. . ?.,,:t.:.,: 1.w s.R

.4, :,,..,

z

3. J2,.w:.'.. -

, ): .w . ;...,u,. . m. e ,-2...v. 'p.s. u .S* i r g.;:+.g.: p on.7 -s.%,a.... t 1 -..,mm.w ; schedate' cowptat fom 4 ..r.. :n.. n ;,,-... _, ..g....i _.t : ;, e.

• ui

,3. G..y~,. n.J.1,.s..:.e.... Tant emen ts t { en Ac t g, g e t - v,~- ;. .;er e ,a.c. .n.w n ..a e ar.. J..... - .a. y . Pro tr tsa Re<m Irm -.J.tw,.... -e. W s...'s ..- ;:5 ' c,- $, p. Ap;g... g. ; f. - - 2 w. ;.... ;._.-p. y

c. _3

't.h.:'J.M' on. p' c re,. pt.preging' change.___pg. -' " .?.. . c 4c%. y.. ;. .....r ~+r.@. m,@..:. &. _ .,L. ,,..v :t w -4 m /,3 &.cy .e_ r b e.. p 1 7 M.._.....r.; yp. e,g c . %--m.-nere-gs.&. .;p.y . d., _.w.+ p-

4".. cat.ggv..>_g.Jr.: r.L..,,u. w-e _g. '=* de...s..,m..r. 2,.

~. J-z: v.... r.I.-.w -- =. c c,. a .. a % 7.,s e q< s.... ; c,.n =.ap.:s. :: *u -; e w.--- c., g-:n rs.,. g 4..:yg!. 5 . J.

r m

s .- I seetgg : arape. ,;r. .*f:- ;(. ey$.;.., t q;,c r

n,

.;;. 3..

1 .c. -..~.6

jr Q *5,E p. m.c. K ii..h b ^i..1 g* c.*.:5 ;. : : n. :.~i ". ~r. $.

.s.j:.

.. d

... :.r.

,. t

, q p a..;.s

• ' g f.: -.,.;ge.,,,.

4-. ~: Spa

w...... n.:i.W,.g--.,; 'pa. W y;t..e. wye;3.W...;. M,.i.Mz- :=2's~ ?e,.:,

T( M.,y..,em.ccntto t3... :.. .m . Q.d

f.;.

I 1.._ De fine scopo ?.. t,,ge,,4p.gg,vg.,g,,ps:p_f.I,ce.in-procedure a which,.._. ,e " "..S,, ' :... :t 5. ~.T.'. 7. J~ ~ sc. 1 " De .. 5 T '.5.i.n..,n,,. f.

a...:.

%a f., "i Ja. are to be Ot3 data. base.,,,..-,a.m,.s... i..: .,..v , - : < g. -. ,....m..,,,.,,,.x.~..,..Ag.._... .. s, c.. p. DNE).,.,,.s. . 8-1-86 w.y m ...y,-.g.g ' Complete s .c u. . :..-- a i (C-;;. 1'...-.-. -. gif.tv.Ti? -y@..r: Y. 7". '.,:'T.17.."laig.N itision'a f Nelear EngineeringConstruction (D5C) ;..., D ' n a.t.T.f. i %,.. ( g .c... .ce- - e.. m.... e c...,.e.,.a. ;7. p.t ,2.~C.sDivision of. Nuclear gy.p ~f :f,;u...i ,.4.. 2.,,,m.i.m__:-. 0 ..g.,..q..u.. 3. -Ohclear 's1te s ( NS). . 8-1-86 ?..g r . ~.e. m@c.y,;r .e h.f;. ..~.-.n 3.;: : w:;. .g.1...,...., <~ c.,-.

c..,..._ n,.,,..,.., ca....:,.

o_ P.a..n,d de,f.i.ne within 'procegures. .e. A, L;...:..- . ;_. t;;.y.; a ~.w w y> .A.,.,. x- -n: ....,g...n mLL-. 4. fre-.- p:...i.,s c-c,.. ...v.w...... a tion..o E M T).u g:s,- p :.... : ..y ...-.,;r-i.t r.. mun.aanda.t.ory. data e ements'.to.be. " entered.into.".M.,: "~@ ... :_., '.t..M:yg. M ', y.,w . 2.x en. t..i f.i,c.- 3g. ".'? ' t;..,5.y., m....." _.:/ ~ ' 2.'.C.Provid.e i_ddata: elements. m. -- M. m..... s. .,y ....r. . 5.,. p.2.m e .........>y a ...w, -.

r.,,7.c...

.. 3. f, t. g,,..m.-=...,.,,,,... My' -m:....d. a tor.y - . e.. r e r. y c.Iss. at. rswang , + c...y&:4.~. : -r:,:;;;:w.. :.y... -....s m..r...i, ..s .C=. & tite E M t hg,u". ? .2....w.~, v w w w'.r.y k g x: n n.:. p r g ey ;s4 a...p" .o h.; :::.

e.w--j.sg.

. o - -r 9 ggyqx,.n.:sy.;;

• yn L: w... -. w.-:; u p: 7,:

r.. ..,e..a. e, .u.~ we a-J. =, 's. n. s -W i v'.i 3t %.&.$~' .; e. $.sh.a we* M*4 0 ?y2

• G l' '*:r BE % <g c*-Q' 'i
• J *'* i-:*-'" r- * -

' ' 2 - ~* ".-* '"i : -:7:".2

• .g-} 86 2"*.

  -*.O. T g

...n: T.Q> 2 ?6 D ,w qt M,r M-1 ... _. _' u r-.1.:~s..=s y,:-.,.:.m.a_.r.dpc:.4...m?-w. ~.Dnc. >.yx:. =n W-...t ~.m-+2u. u e. ?.:-- '---m,.==.=.r..:.::.:.;.;:::. g._ t-ss..m:., 4-p;s-m a %: :. a,... ~..'.... .... a 2.:'y:r. Wy n y a,.,c...w,,.m.c.. ,n.. ~..... w._...,.......,. s y. r . w

m.,n.c..a

,..s.a,...._v...,.,. ...u.

r. n

...w..,.: a ~.;p,e.,,n3. 4 2 ..,... _ w 'g._g. f y;s. g:,1*;= ._~_g C, g.: n.. 2 w,. s. cr,n.. .p..m .y .,..-c., ..c .a..x.. .t.g .-.u ......... m....... n..-e ..x....._.. m,:-. ,...-y..., e .... g. 3;--- --y; ggmplete.,..s g ~_ _ _,y: Mgf o_,..,_...~- M.g -- ~ ...r 3, L_, a ~,c..,;. 4 ...._.u. .,,;.. w....,,,. '..,",".:1 Z"g ' ~ ". .~,W ~,- --.".'% .c.e..,....---d..s..a v s. &M - ~:... - l - d de fine.wtthIn PTOCe ureS .-. r... w w .o

cysg

- 3..,FIUvnde da cs. ntry fOrBat,, '. ". *#..I *. Deve Op SD..-- -r-data entry *formag. standar s w d for each .w s I C3 . r- .e .,m. a ygggggggg o[.TVA.g"ene' rsted.or vendor. .e . w.-. w-m_..- +>.:....... .M.,.%.A...,, a ,....v. m. .g n.hn c .....e.. s tandard s.'V.'cw.., d :... =.. t, e. .e . - ::* a3 g,. + .-..,.__4. i... s

:::= :-:.- - + -

2-1 a u tags.u,: Gr.r. -e.:. cz.;;z:.-:" -4.- ......_.".=. y,. C.. ::r,.: 9w ...: - =m, t,:.u. :m. a.n~.-:- :w. ..<g.:w..:y. c =-:. ...:, geners ted..'dr. s.I.ce.r,m. m w.-- .~.= ~:

r.;:u.::.::-.- i u w.f.w.. -.. ~.

x- .r, . 2 -~ zm.y... e.... u p,. s -- ...e.-.. v:~.c n n.. ~..:, =.... c.-.. h h '*.'"'"" Qk' ?: o....,.. -....4.. w. v. L-- -- e.v ;.~-:~ ;.. m. o.-33.. ..a.e ..~. s.. 2 ,-...,..6....,,-W J f- =...- p-. . m,.. m, ~.c. .; ;...c@.y2.. t p..c,,y,goP..n. TVA. drawing numbering .. ". s '~ ; ; - n Q: -- :.3 .. q....n. 4 =.* .p ..:..- s;<. ..:.. w.f -.,._ d draws.ngs... y ,) J 4 G.,:. 2..+r.r.. e-c ..s.. _ _ _. t -- **. ;;-. _,...e.. _..w.uw v.,,.. . rg .yW,.; acheme seaadatd 3.for;v..e.n..or ....p,. u g y. .' 1.,, . : _ _.-r.-. <.x. . u...r. .. De .2 .....,r,i-33-q - ..:.r........., r r ns-s... ur.... e3 ,s .s g e,.. n.

9...*

s s j.. .t: -~ '..' ~ i'.._.L '.. ".c --.-. 2..v..._' ': ....-., 3. 5x:. * .I9 3.,. ' s < ...4....,... ......... ; e.,. ~..,ea.. a m - L. .l.'

p i

.~. -...i.:.7 i J. ' - ~ r.. J. ' mr. p'$ a .. o w -- 1 ~~- ' g' ,s. y ".'e.s- , T -./ .,t V",-. :- ..s....,. A ' r. : 4.e v.:4., .,,p.. r ~, _......,...,..1...,..........,... ,K,,g.. ~.3 : .........,,.,...r... w.... .. ~...., _g_ ....... :. :......v- ,n a.. .r .s.... .a.. ........s....,. .u -_sn . ~; ..s,,t.. .,e.., M e_ sr . a.. ~.. -,.... --r-_ g* a_ 7., *_ s -a_.: ..._.'..~.-i.r~.... .........a.-.... . -.. :.E.~-.,2.w==% .r..._. e..a r -m.-.... s. .c . :.. c. j . -. ~ ~=: = : :i:-1:: ' - '= ~ ' ' ' ^ ~ W 4 ...<..:.. : :.:.:a : r.- :.; n.. :. : ; ':. '.--: '. r a:.: u r u i p:....

. :1.. =-Y

= - 2:?. ?:- -' =v-:-.=:= :- D. :. : ::.-- tA

t:

..n ..drR. sq -E. !M.,.s:Q';Tff-;1c. 9.".G at. W h... s.

?... -

i.:.1./.4 =.,.le c.

j N",.c - v ,p- .s a - ~~ z-G.a c.;: :: wa.'--.m.u.j-u.P..~d-w g-_ ~.- c: p;&-m. p'r y ~ --. :::.^ r- - a..>n w.~:.: u ,,- m rz m: r,- +. _- - - -~~ =.:: r.:....'. ~ = 2.*= =.gdG.y y. o i.:- -.......n. ...,"... w. m n,w.w,,,,4 w -m

.x ;g.

p.eg -t .,....: :. _.: : :1..~.~.

• a. : :~.r~r.. : : -,_-:h:. u_ ?.n..:.:: :..r::- 5 -~_~ :-.

. ' ~. Q.:. '..... : : : ~. - 1 .m,.. .~.s.w.- u.u,1:...t =w, --w. u- - s.u. + s

=.-e s.,. --~-. 4 :

.,:,..... a re ua.a.v n.-= . +

a. ::z :us:r*rc

...wgoy..;;r,. 4-.g? =-ph .,.-p~ r. -- =c::x

.g.tu;R&&O.69.h2 quad -MF1rt:tra.

e. v a

x :. nc

r-

--r.-;:.:..:..;: - [.. 1 -w-r- -n 9'%- ...e - -. - ~.

,M 4 ,,m J g .N wm.ach W ~Np W im n..... m.,...i & D, % y q .w. y p y 7 w. p m p p.ir @M g h W qn,m u n;y t 4 q Q ! J, y,W W W m W W d., 1; wy.... y e .A.k, W W.u. g ? M MMiN s i a

h (. d.W a.2. M g %Jj% % M.' h k..

r - };.. N $l$ i k ! D 4 3 k M p~.h q g r*i . MWio 'q bgW. j,%q W w#:,1,.,,, qp : G<-.

1. g.u Q:

i w g ,r. t up. a t:p..p!. n , w: n.: gg n m il -.;!! w!':.r,r'c .h.4*,q er:.. , Mll*A ~ g p: d....- jp l Sl.ly. i , Y;t ',h%." t.. - c',MTruj$ :. j 't 9t'4'.t g SM! ~i eghf N i-kI'g 4 t Q - }p..{.s %s q; ig 9r e.bjr[J. $ il Q5\\}; I. .id:4 j , 4. 5 i. f ? { n M'i ~ N y,,.p y;.N%). '- .5 ,ig @my 6 a,2,.. v. 2 s i ..n!h%.y ws j,, J m

. e 4,9 3. c! f j ~ ci i 4 M,[h,!l :i.

a , d;d r.a w' pro, jj i, w y u s,d: p r,J.fM,... '.'

l

,,;$.m!.7$.:..:.: i

?. *

$h.9 Me l7 i

G T: do r Jl. ig,.; ? l' g ittu t .?: q,,g ;, a.s I.f /h! r y"' :.g, I i ...., ' ~ g.. q '. %,.h o.d *N f ' 't.. $,' ' U,.' ...f.q : :,.,4:.?g[%d k'r, ' a 4 "v. .t f M.sMM{ #'M j $ 4 d,b8i hiri.d s. k,hj.g'. '-4 '1 i un l. W.j{@F%.' Mdj.I 3 ,f h b.t...,.. @e....., r.+...! N @w.!.! M M,sg t y Rt.yj v.J... M, 1 gg h.! 3 Qa h k !3 9 Nek.'I.,; $. b M.,$w :p. . o.n. g... .'?,. m,.. ,1. i.,p..e ;;;'.:.t.'. ., g.. ?i. f.m.31

J.,

r n $.. c.,...........,

g [,,.%s

'i, n.. n t m. no j..e. M.4. M.t. ..: n. 6.h g h> ;e~ u ;('J.~.%a ,3 a N o (Ej:r .m,. s .e t. w . w.. #.,,... w.... w.n....,. )...om.. ;.u u.. : v.. ;. g m c ]y N i:.f.... 9 'i',..' L

m. e. 3 Aa

,,.I;.W@ ]g i ,/,t-

.' N,n (

'< '..i r,.. t f.,;i ?' >! i'1 s.

• *f. [O/. T

t. 1 p '. : i n,. ly,.!h.'p '):.. d *. iI. /

6, f l:11 e H f;.*i..; li-L V.%'.Ij y !.. m.n s:7. w. a y"' :M: J.' c.h* ;..:, . W IJ !M y. .:t."m k9 8 ,n..c.yW.r.:, : .c ~ Ti . n.M..:b lpp;o.,, p "..;'d,

h' h,

.,\\-:t 0 i i;p.[ j.

n v Ni ma,&q 'y:.@a,.q:~aq 1::rpx. - i n.v.:. T... -@. .9 i: r E- , j pg + [ y p, q. .w. p :$*/ Q. : ?.f: m]d.,, 'rg"... 2 .A:!v:.e;d,m yl...: '; j!. p . Eg$v . r* 1 '.'.h d'f P.';p'n y.ii. " I h...;Wiggr/c ! W ~lp.'w'..:; d."~w. M N h. p' .g.'le. w.9/m ". +: d x.4. Qi

ti. N h

. $ q; r s hm.,<w.. wyh;nt !m9.wo 3m.:. z wbg hx,yp:sa w.w p.. gaph "b.:y.y.3+,s N7 ...; m %m <!nt..p;9:,p y. i.ah - o e.m 2 a 4 . g-q aMg g.r.. j 's. m, A No. p h... q.i Wp,. p .T.o r.a.hl.23 5(a..?.il F '. p 'I"..it!.4:"pw! r J r r M Mc ad k M, hf Ml4 '.,d:, r f

h. c P.h.4.y

..; ii p i <,.. -p. .u. i . 9o i J. i :! f 5' O. i.'b [;,p':' Nh,0h.Nk:.. ~; h 1., y;;,. i m. mm[.n/- b ih.. N H' : ; n ![cqln:0,9.;;w':l.: p^.e is ff@li',M'M;f!'; y;)W ~ c., a c, .e.n p p:v d 6 T 'i. ' jJh.[s 1 . m y'a gM.. ,c c. q@Ig.,.H,y Dp' j.r,;e @y W'). !glr.y;gPl.p,Jip.h:o,;c, /g c.' W o,,*:, c d c ':. c: l !f

1. gi? ':,r.ha3.'.p.m i I ' N.. L) Y.N. NhIM..o,th'4.<pg

.G;::;.y [. g]yih ...i q ' g$p.g. 4 %:p.;c.::y,/;PJ*.q,C*g..J.0it .~ U. y t. P {j t g Ey,,. l n.,.,y ',:.. i .[,e > ; $., m , 4 :..W: p.. t. :.n:.,..... l, .a !0 ....h.., h;. :i.1 y., :. ~. i 14 *. x s .a .. q.o w gs s 4 h.iiIlhN:. w : m e( ..m &*/.;@ii,'d[h', O II' 4,,f /ho v-Ib.. m wN -.p 3,'.":.]:. c,.. n :.. - ".'ar s .wi.a n. Jb

I}

. :.w m w! ?':', d.' ib!/f ? **'h'!if ll:.!. g F r a r :l cn ! lI'. ' o m ', @:.T @ c ~ it G:71 ....p,micm'.[+J'. f y4'; *'"*"'[. w;*:: p ; m s,. r m e:. 3.::, s k.. Fe e.%;g .N 2. ', l. 5. W r, I :I y.+h 4d n' m m e r;.3.! . : n,.. - q

• r +.'{ p u g '.. i :1. m:r; jm,~.~, r.

~J an d,. pm[.m.;M.m,4 . th.w.m:.w.4 'gmpf~l

3 u'

p..: p n 1 e.v d v w 2 iv p Fygt., r. u f.o, - v, - s ..m.. .npil,.?'ukp:r r g . m.o .o .r l

h. ' qa 4,. tip',v..ur..,iw:: ' "

,,.,: ?, o' .. e' s., w,,. 4 u ig' e a [e,4; j,w$,y'M;;8;MMMMUhWSQ, WW . w. a r i> w..g.r *flM e 3 i Qhb MMiM4 nw %Muit.9gggyg BV4l$M \\ l w%+w:9M n

c.+~ an er n. ..,x ..a .o o-i, s .q. 7 9: b..;,)[. F.dgI.g!%"iI. j: : )[.Ql,'d 'W ? g ,gy., ,Q4, 4i'Mi ,tj 1I,X2J[3;M,3T,NJN. ..i ::t !NidD fv , t.. M... I A M. M . h4 4 E y.y:i;.:'d.ty L%.g@g@g:g.a a,@.,q4..dG

.... N d..E 1 h I ? N h9 E.

winerr 5 y.y,m.: 4 J y [M2 4 7 -o z, B-i .g o:.y. }I i,> k C .i,.g.i.P % g,, g gl, q. g c;;c:.t. h

q.

>O a 1 h.y S 6 ,g .i. 0 pl..: n e y yh,if.5:G.egpp)y.i@N. c.,rNJF.Tii;il?, f, !; ffi: '.'ih,;yf;plyhn,, - Q:- .tlir,i c,1 i Fr Sb ? NtlyMt.1! h{l~ j N [l 49 a ' N,T. O E $! a Gh i;.;a;&M!,1%!p-{! tNi1:r!u ;; 3

il p kk

.de;ig;(p 'r n2 M M, hk: ..'!. M l M Sis ui? u i f

,'#ii.4 y

e N@.f

@J hh'h f) 5 N$N;:wpb5N,,MP.r 8a u

m e y 1,; r 3 o 4 h

.I! O! if,N ljh} bNf 3' M UI b 5kU $$lE4 FI"M;h.lid.h'f:kd' T.b4  : n i A.. M: 's. 3: / 7 / q i5id.M.MF5.[ rim.i$# 83iMN.ita' $h(:.t.li.j. I Nc i, 4 V 0 h I L gp .I }j b 1 p" l h

h. 3[ $ h,

a p, F. N .. h'; 3,b b Mhkb f3 i Q&S!$, U"iqg,,r,g4Qm Q i71hFT'*%5: Ti.4 l f H m lri. d I trr:2dia j. W,e ry.gg 'sWdi31Ii3 i pt a h,f.h:,lp':yp., i pjm:I ,pMxij ~ eghM l y s a gge y:.'. h i &%Fa,jj,U.$qhh. h I %'b. h.$e@H.Nh3Phre.W.Q,y 1 'fd a@' g a,{6 .lRbda!RIIffkilt4f' 'MW];J D !. fe'MMWMBIM U$. d p i '!'ae.4,i$,mgijgh'$;l E ,a WG.i.hs:My? y n t E hhAL.hf I q .;c$ ffyf dp M g:y}/ p.!cp(g. ?fFj' H . 3,

br.

y

1. g)

.r i. p:V a ',g,:t. @p y, ";t us i sit 8.,[Nh1 At.d, !$h5'! g. Ac W:p:Tip4 D{@k.: ip.a.p t., F4 i.: a.m 4 m J.'<> N d.i. ~g ni}3f:p@qhg ?)$!d@ag . i.'; .C M,i' : NI-Ih ? s8.@dh ia E kki hN

c. - - - -

i N l;.i9T M.tii $fi .L b,pd i$.el$s&, : ,y I hIh i E g@ 9 1J t. Q lh b d. K i .i :n-f yEy +E.)%zghygM.u :. ~~ a { y g, a. N i',,- m. d 3 " 4 n E S.g. c . d,yP C j: H.,. f., h /p" f 4 y#g:iyd4. v.o.;lf'i.P'Uld: ,4,i <n k. g N..mgso-ii P i 3;.dp%.3

d. a.g.' 1 r r..-

k ,t.F i yE-p.1 S '3 k p.9 a. gi N.'f 8..3 ,T. p4u$ },@gi,i s:';eci. n. k,p r g a e h::.5. :'ij:

c 3.s tt.c [< j;.T.i41.!. i 7di dE3 C.... f J T D T [ IF' !.,!."!.,*,Y N. $, ! H..dIa 'p1 g.(j.

s{n..',{E.;j t 3 n. p ,n i ze,ps )! fi!

• M d

,1 M 4,1 n. .., i e,fffF3hy,x[ds@p.,v,.7,m c., a.. .g, .i.. -Qp)t -.f FTWWT!!.i%e.;. i' .,iM,j!;l!'"l r' VU! 6),t.w".tc.h:~?dhi!Md'{ih'Mi . li.'],!j d,':,y:.. @ a;c 4 a t r. - ,.,, :h.cr ol.;,$ ?' M '" ' ' ' i J m 'l7%7 j.':j ) n . u z v.g$Ml:- fi.Gi 0 ."u..%.Wlw..r ".!siG OM,:.. c:Siih.M%. > . y .h ^ WP.;a$y.0 N&, 5;f).$: w.M. l.' n" p,,p i t ::. a q..s y W. w 1 5 mi U N' a, a n k'~'. v..W Ih .3 MW%WJhl,p.HlliWIIiiEb,p,.. M%%ws.6MM4W,ecev.mmwegos.Mc;@MTEffR.qWENEE6!$s W!!WW@ist4 Wen! 9i

- m; ~ ,., u...., n,.. p,.,.l9,p..sv .. p, . :...t,.q,. o ;;..,.,.,.m==nn4m=mc..g#! pa, n,,pg g . s.c.ll, .. tc 4 pt *l INF h.MV./i222 222.M,222"2.?' l i lh k b :$..'hf 0 0 f. ' h $ h.m,..; f f00 0 0? lIih h.):, . :"a (.h,. jfh! ,k k.N. Y,S. l O . o i.'!il ji. 6i..q.g n y..s % e %W)[,gi.:, .YL. d

• ii iNiQi.0]$'f;b) k e [N; g{.

- M ll l Id l N

.T!?'s.

l . i.; g: pda a;s.%g,..l! " a p,:, n. i." m i .y m . [, o g 4-W pt:a:. .i n.. p. g a t.iiri M.. Ei pIIh,.i )x M ,i r @sg,X.{hg$j" z,>

.c.

) hj[> l) ; n i i, t.x [ga; [h@. 4 h.a$*,M!.m,..i.'h.%w,.:. 'f,;:I .l I }, g}. /. . J F.M Q 3{; h% 9 y m, .n v..u L $.} 1@0T. i %>:piQ',.%q,%n(qck'.,j' F ,n.. :r M m j a W t h.pr.g..ps t n,. W@$' y '#ignp:-il:g.g7. e ri g c p..jp,P, $,/i.! pJ.d. h,.: g 1 e Jfj!5'N'N!.SEM.f<kh@E$,y lb; f b4j ( M: M.di[: 4 bd 1 t' a f hE pun $e!!E ni.4@..Ac g .ycasa:. N~;c n'm4.:9 %;o en.: M.4, Wg.. ,. v % e i.e g,,p.es..&..h,lf'gpb.h.ex.p4:monx.4 , a a n a y \\ n.n.... hy.y[5v..,h,hp m f((dLs<M:.h.h.h.:..f.hy. .L an- .a . ~ ~f~ ME h d

d! P fiU I

..., A.i :,. q n l> o vi..j: elig. ,,.. t.

• pl.. a- -
• c,. a 09

,t <> f... d.. c a I..., ;c. < a,. . r a y.: .o., :4 s ., p. a . '.r : a 6 'J.,i.).nk v..EVD; i

o..o j..p., /p, fin....,p. s p/,.'W fa'f,:(i'O y m pr'

..e:. y v-.c, .t m u 4 n - rp, .. b.p.:..s 1.9... e . 'hN'.'jj;p.d..q.ps,e}y4 '}>.fq;.pc' c'.d gj3.g,W, ill t i $c 'qmy 'ye a .a,c e r s ~. .. c', :. i 4v

. ; b.3.,cpw ;,a f'.i..,i,df,4.J <f,, T' vibg'!:

" " ' u a (M:l by. !!k.cj.. 6.. :e. ll:. - F a r . W:4.. p. T :o r.i o 7 .. d hy i. -

. 'i ! l

'iN , N f. I t.c. J F [. ' b t ~q .. M.. ,a... i i. ' eh..;;,1.,!..[;. :t . h 3g:

• . g.a.g c..

!:r s,y 16"., byp.u y[..e .t ...o p d.e!

A.dlj".y'."b,H..~ lr $.. ;,..

p

g;,

%:M.') w J p h./g( uri,! b + .8 4J '" S H. i7. :. d 'J. in .s n. ?

1.c ' y'-

s,a. 9, ',~ . i, '.r"Ep,'- r i N 0 (g. ' i-py t 'i, y :p".(!l.N:h.r...' 11 i ' P'H,er.!. i.ijli g@..: M,,W ,. 3TI "#i , P,. r g @g,,;e gf,. $ 5 'I' gd e&..lk, "..o. i:;.. k e!,/pe.M, i j(m.e r,,;%g ! T r 7,m c '..', e O .( .,r.: u p.i' ..~! =,jLr.n c: p-c.

n l.o.:fw:.

i :, .i, a n .j a s e c ;; ' -l. !d. WN;3l M;y'..;;y.f.i r.'; !. y f. f,.1 j1"jg t:.g.S c;.tf; : '..j. J)^ Mji .,te c.T 'q'lU".d..ie,a r 4 ..w w. y. c 7:m.v. y. e' My, 3 fo@ R m.. u.. ....:.d'i MWM;M @. !@:jb@H.c.c.k*:qb.;.n fWi i m;4i .u,.A,r . m'.m...t,q.+.wden.mw::s :y,n.1;gi' mh 4,g,y.e ; dq :.n..yA; b:'. . :... n.!. n ....y'.h.e /o .~;4 :p p n.ega. - .r. a '. r.4 Ip] .I c-r. jh,/ d.F:!G.i.":Ni

(,gf,g,'g hM@g,).s.b %;r..!dMh,ikNh. b$Mb;iyN;K l'NOMb j

o., ., c

i g

FP i' $,4.6,h.iW:5 t. d .. fr+r.s.t@4 .v.w:t % N.n'N.L8'Nr,WJfr!.'.4%bde.,p.;;qrW9'ifgy"i.pff,g@J/Mh,W)(g'MfpaiMd@ps1Mf5r 1*j w,h* V Mi#4y, $ K K # ENC WrMts

pr;m. d MNT.$.MAf.4My&.

r w r.

d

Y I M g ,b hWpiD#'t, W j.D W.fi b. ik hn h@ "*' 2.fAj! $ 1[fyM b. '[ ' f' Di ibO ~AFF11rDIX D I I h i '.hfflgl 8: QRAl{ING MANAGEMENT EUBTASK OROUP CHAIRHAM RE8FON81BI M1"h[y$k,w !*F,N NRW. j ./ I CR0AHIEAT10HA1. 1HIERYACE a p

• j'Q.[.'i 0 g.g

,&p 3.g)' N fz J iJg g gp.!. t J, - c c L ..m%{'f; j eMp }.],.. ; h.m. ' h . W:. k fl i / "; , te.ponalbtlities ..l t -Q 'A. Develop and implement a single online,Of flee of Maclea 3 ? - > : " k m..s l - , ' m%ep t - i.

• ' O.!;*dt p

', /.' b' D.} OIL g,k I [.,4',P P " configuration control date: base'.(DH8); ~ 4 o,Definef!Es data base acope.*Pisp+~ - 31 b f '.' 'g/ ' dg-Yj.D5relop'and establish a continuous d Ylo S L ..,r ev IA y 4 r ~ '. n+my l (:

pig, L',

ettynrplan. x, bol ' Coordinate a consistent Office of Nuclear rover-vide drawin 3 'E. ji.. !;r ,.h p N l{0rganisationalinterfaceStructuresystem, pr g:,, - s h, W.QQiff ? y. C - f.. ' /d .u 7 y:[ h t ! ;4 y p E.};;; f73~ q,i Ugl } r r.! . p...y v t) i 1 qRhssi;L.p,. n... Configuration Control Task Torce. p 7j' "; 7 f,jg $ m.ij k', ',?':M, y 'r . E '! t s g 4 I*.' 7 ' "'i g @ p p %:.. A p$ $ p f 'v W 2 i c 4 y.fjl'.[+.. , I k .m. m ge - ff.1 wf..t~p;;j.gl nth ,T' '.YS, .v- ! 2. Di isleo of a.Q),0: N m d pI,f}. l..K r 'G J W + 6 Q (h.NN g ,6 !'3a.y. j 1, j r,...{g g, Nh;, Nuclear.Engi .i. i p hhbbl!. hk N}.f.is i '.L. " N t l !kh.Y l/h' ',$ r .h b 5 h o . Ml. l Y

w..

1. l4 R' l3 W ; m, p[~li.ki h'.l8. " p.,;

i 4' 't 'N i.I; 1I $# 'g,'? 'Tf.'N'gv. a$ e'g: t. m k, b' h. 'k. 1,' ne'wd p W W d h w,(~ x'.,d.0 " g Dming d e, $Y . g, r

$M IJ i;M.nageeentM ", 3.? Division of Nuclear J *.

jt s . " 6.' .,cy,.g,iSubtaskp,ag,..,..f Ergin Division' of M G i ^ k(@C2 b Welfaf2Censtructlen ((;. pccotro D c,Do eveent nl bu, g...d.n T chairman k. f,r@t hg(;l, E ,c ro up' I'c. b s. and.Hethode n.t gi od!81tej M h, t Pecorde g H. y f : i. andinfatr.4tton.p,o,i;',f.;k.. = p'k. rj a '.@.y p,.W..W,9iHM. :; wpm.y [M .nter. managers

• qd.M.$4.y'( W Ml.

;.;."4 P

' @p. n w " d 'J 8taff y- . "

• y :. !y/i:'e 'q'89

. )3 a' h p , b:. N;. g T 9 J t ';'. v.' m n: 7f,' ' g of flee.of'.Muelear j? 5.#j g[F4 ^ .K " ,e

• I "'L Assurane. and office.:*li.p !y!!

fMrEritHs'Maintstrai:ive$;,p,f.bs;M m,p t divisi 1/Ef{.*hi. 4i ng.%f, Fuel.aerover 3 4 " h:('t h.!,h. 43,l l $ ' !% P s /.' h;., 3 I: 'N . Jicoo'rainsters "' m,'!i 10 C '7 l

g;. i

& p., %,.i f4 W;t y, g,. 5 h;i, %.,.. t ortonlaattone T,- ., g ' c g 'fpA_;.'t '..... r.gf;j'g;,,t -lrMettonet'interf acei ,. M:.: ir unintitrattv.unt.cf.e.n.A,@@F. qg%.;pp e%n. y 5 M h '" t iytt@e (? 4.. x-wy!

enu. ;coordinstes data baselint.arltr!=udIt

=nd. data ba..;.oft

'.., :,... i.. ,2 t y' ..f,.~,)ap s e q q',u.7, -;coordin.t.. Of fie. ofinuet..r. rover:dravtes'proe.dur.. preer..i 2,- 4

e. u..r. o..d./.y<t..i e f f.' eiv.n.... vu. f ;':e "

i" .. F e ~ 4. t 5u ! wuyn.i,. r.. o ,. n .s a y v. ..y 7 l';iT!Ili > ' ph 9.0.). y u'l('jdi3.j:.I.d./. SO.4,12.~.:W,@'d.P [I w.iM3 ': wn m ' iii.."ff n-a q. f't a gY,,JM.g; f.. ~n.-n m, yi.gs... , oi. ... tis 3 d y1 n {- ., i. s t. N . n t ep... l:h 5.Y'* kI ' f. Hrt.i-b Md ! *,.i t ig, pw.., n.4.'. " '. A, : 'I' . '.~ l ' 't. l t I h*',d.h :h"Mn.' ... a.o a i "s r;t 'e MM[:/. ; ,1 '.< d i k "M. a... n.1. b: a.s.x,t.w(Ny h;;.pNl0 '% p,.y, .~.V.D, mMN.NMEO"j','O; ng I, i jl' 3 t.*/M.i. 1 W lii '~t i 'i E O @g.b': QE i DN (I i .-n$m.., nyv m m. w 'p a d h , - m. _ k.tM,N NMh%hs.h h h.,hhhj 9-M8MNINitt m }4

h.... -.,

f, g., '. :,% @ gym ccsyg y [ 'ia..[hh, kg:....,r i,. y ff. f: w. ..i-g'} if l 'f ! h,I kp f plt.,,.t : [I'g@ 9 7. r e,3.s. ..F s x,,p)jf. 'Ny,.T ; r./,. i .i i @Q, dd (i '. h',i.r<i.'s)$hp .' r,g 6 M th ' '.I N ~ M.r. 8 i' u!'Q: p..h. I 1 9 1 ' ': "i '7: (D Ij'$ */ f.!IQ, d!.3 j N $iiiiih'.fp2' h f 's ; .,{ .s &

i.l g

~. b i: i ' jgg]S 5 l k.pc G' K 'p h.0:! h 3

• E

'V". i (y ji,%n,. j'!j$ P;,; ;Ts '" ! i .P,. L

?.})

i ~ i. . L y, a.l...!4 .!!p 9 ir. B..g g 3 j'.67,., a.

1. pt 'y),

3 e t g I ,,, f air I;; .d...N aT."J -, g ';o. ng. Edd p p = M' L 3 " 'i a .:.t', c i p!f.l d} hdl Yh[: h!P.:g3}M., j J,.I 4 ...:.t..,. ?g.'. d,. O '. * ':;h>d'-iiEr/V5,i

q, r

l* ij hN e8' L..". H.:o l R t.. V. f. ;. ipp. bg 1

1 M>G E"/ *. } 't; u "; 4 4,.

7 .. Il1 j ). T;- m",,. L g l t; 8" ' a p. ;3 r. .;; J .' t it.., d' M, " q; ie g 4g)).[.b'yi'd.a x R 0$1h.F. !E 51 J f.N! $3 WEi8eigI!- K p-]<,31 ..l

, c n.v 4 9 i

4 .t ~ M.:W:.. J :4j 8,:.. s . kh.. ;,l ' :.st. '.q.: gm. fH.I,":' 4.a4.7.hi. G.@. %.15.r .n 4'. !.j. l* + 4. ":..v.. R / './. Di i l B.4Ab a N -w. a,. cg.c &.. ic.4: c. gh i j.,.

f. r;;h

.e. .Q ,.,p ;,. ? i 7./.jl{, ((;]II v I U 'p: i.. n%@g h.l.d; '. !:di 30-j. 'v r.. 3.t S '.: '.l ~4, a i p I' ,.., l y ci J. - g.t, y, ~' N, ' ,*4..}t; - e"- i;! L-i ! y) i-W +.. a .s .i ';5 g. R k,e hr 4 .g/p'p!a.)- ym'" ' ll5. U h .h p ~qp)s w* ! %g q q f.,e s s y' p y g A@ g e Q z. m p g g ypM v. 4 ,q..w ::

o. m..

EN N E I. g'hm. m ar 'n '!jIIdl!H k... n 6 k..s..,d{ 3 m & 8 4.kd,:... E $.$F. : N @ u#WM4ll3lg;j?gjfjj.;#f If.5.m... E E g. y ..n ye 5 @4.i....G -LD.. V.' 3 0'13 2 jj 4, 4 7 d

g~@m.s. r{i Ed;h.hg35 l

j h .y. h s no.=,n e f. ggg:.nj.ykq(W'y&n.U}i.,i Cg. 4 D*91'j%p.L, p; &( g} M G.y.'.c; f l s hy...1. B y ;..p' e

1..

e Iing th jp M.Q.i ty l "y e phi ,ie.N u.

m. w fW,Th ;Wn.N -

"l'! $ :IM ij - l Md g. M 4; C n. n :.i.ona.. % Wpm @ew pb;ag. nr ty - utg,{ N,p;. :m, ,:,m,..u FR " .i J.: :;. ; gib ., p n ai m v.r.G".dur.i m a ..t .. e.w.jr s,. A, .cp a p h

...Nf:

.h. N hh D i.) il - l ' 1 (, /d.'E!Nr (Q pRg'imW. i@WW]@siymia@v em&&v#x.c.,

4.:wWm.p..M*

c !<. p u ng,;. y. - p si .r 6. M # U g,= ww A.g a = L =,.. s#ck %my. p&;gge@m@w@gg>gsigy Winw.e.% % w w. mh ts

w ATTACHMENT H ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracking Document (CATD) INITIATION 1. Immediate Corrective Action Required: /[/ Yes /X/ No 2. Stop Work Recommended: /~/ Yes /X/ No 3. CATD No. 80503-SQN-01 4. INITIATION DATE 11/18/86 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: SON Site Director 6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: /X_/ QR // NQR Site Director's responses to recommendations addressed in Nuclear Safety Review Staff,NSRS) Report No. I-85-472-NPS were rejected on a memorandum by the NSRS Director dated February 26, 1986. There is no evidence of a follow-up response or corrective action ( pertaining to the " Corrective Action

Response

Evaluation". // ATTACHMENTS 7. PREPARED BY: NAME G. A. Col 1 ins G2 A ( '/[m DATE: 11/18/86 8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H R. K. Maxo ( A( 6 /l44 4 DATE: ///Ef/ 6 f 9. APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAM MGR: (f0f#uwd; tfA DATE: 11-t/ -#6 CORRECTIVE ACTION 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN: bM T//6Nrf/CM6b CM 9 / / ATTACHMENTS 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR: ggAd //s., DATE: /-7-# 3 12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H fM/b DATE: 2,/A/R r SRP [/ DATE: ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE: VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented. SICNATURE TITLE DATE

CATD NO. 80503-SON-01 RECOMMENDATION: 1. I-85-472-NPS Configuration Drawing Control Requirements. A. DMS be utilized exclusively by site Document Control Organizations for Configuration Control drawing information retrieval and B. That the master index be placed under the QA program as a back up system, if desired, or until total conversion to the DMS occurs. .2. I-85-472-NPS-02, SQN, Utilization of DMS. A. SQN DCC has not implemented thh'.DMS:asithe single CC drawing management NSRS recommends that SQN require exclusive utilization of system. I DMS for CC drawing information retrieval. This action should establish the DMS as the single CC drawing management system and discontinue DCC utilization of the master index. ACTION To:,1-85-472-NPS-01 and I-85-472-NPS-02 -Due(to the re-organization, Division of Engineering has assumed the responsibilities for the As-Constructed drawings. As these drawings are transferred to DNE, based upon their prioritized list, the master index card will be removed as a back up system and the DMS used exclusively. Completion date: June 1, 1987. 3. I-85-472-NPS-03, Need to Perform Audit / Survey Master Index System. A. Because SQN DCC is using the non-QA approved Master Card Index system on occasion as.its official drawing control system for distribution and construction status information, DQA is requested to audit / survey the adequacy of this area in the near future and on a periodic basis until-total conversion,to DMS occurs. ACTION S_ee attached survey checklist No IC-86-S-003 Drawing Control Master Card System. r w i: I! e 9

r..s H,\\ u, e

.n \\I i w

-~f.. . c, ATp No. ' 00503 - 5@ -o f

n

" og 4 4 g: r s- 't... -, ~,I'g.:e f. r... 2g lh [q ff[p Date. C. / / Plant PRSF - Sequoyah. Nuclear Plant Subj ect: COMPLIANCE VISITS, AUDITS, AND INSPECTIONS 2'INPLANT SURV CHECKLIST NO. Ic-86-5-003 ,"~: Survey

Title:

Drawing Control - Master Card System ~ Survey Date(s): July *24 & 25, 1986 - Survey Results:- u No Deficiencies Found ..d;. Deficiencies Corrected W .~ Item No.(s) DR No. (s) ,;.L.c. 1 eg. -,, j CAR (s) Issued Q Item No.(s) _C No.(s) REMAR13: l.. cc: T. E. Burdette, LP 4N 88A-C f .J. A. Crittenden, LP 4N 104E-C i

1. C. Higdon. DSC-R. Sequoyah

','\\ n m run e k s 1. sen QA dStaf f Supervisor -

• s

• s. *..

ShBJECT: QUALITY SURVEILLANCE SECTION RESULTS OF ACTIVITY SURVEILLANCES, a PROGRAM SURVEILLANCES, AND QUALITY EVALUATIONS Surveillance Number: Ic-86-s-003 Surveillance

Title:

Drawing control - Master card system Surveillance Category: Document Control Was line partici-pation requested? Surveillance Date(s): 7/24-7/25/86 [ ] Yes [I] No Surveillance

Participants:

W. c. Linde Follow-up Surveil lance Required? [2] Yes [ ] No Personnel,,.Conta cted : (Name, Organization) Checklist I tem (s) :- Floretta Hindon _Drawine control center / Jim Maddox _ Design Nuclear Engineerinn Scheduler : *.a fter trannfer to DNE in ~ complete. ~ ~ Surveilldnce Results: Sections Reviewed Deficiencies Checklist Item No(s) Document Control None k If you have any questions, please call _ W. c. Linan

= . s. RhPORTNO.. Ic-86-s-003 PERFORMANCE DATES: 7/24/86 to 7/25/86 ~ REPORT CATEGORY Document control TITLE: Drawing control - Hascer-card system SliRVEILLANCE BRIEF r ~ SCOPE This survey was conducted in response to NSRS Investigation Report Reconumendation 1-85-472-NPS-03. The NSRS recommendation requeste'd that the official drawing control system be converted from the Master Card'Inder to the Drawing Management System and'th~a~t'piriodic'sirveys~be'made~"of' the area until ~ i-total conversion to DMS occurs. j i ~ ~ SUlYtEILLANCE RESULTS

SUMMARY

The results of the survey indicated the following:

~

1. A total verification of all drawings in the Drawing Management System is - i being accomplished.as. individual. drawings...or.. drawing.. systems are being 4 transferred from the Drawing Control Center to Design Nuclear } Engineering. The transfer and verification of DMS drewings from DCC to k DNE is expected to be completed by November 3, 1986. 4 2. Drawing' Control cards are in agreement with drawings on file and the DMS for the sample of Control Room drawin a selected in this surveillance. ) a o j j j M /24 //f4 Survey Team Leader 42 # .'4cd Date I' Renultn Approved [)7#uk/ Date /oh 8 of

~ SdrveyNumber: Ic-86-s-003 Page 1 of 1 dbECKLIST ITEM - (1) (1) -(2) REFERENCE A D NA/NC I. Review previous DRs, CARS, Audit Deviations, No'Re ferencn I etc., to determine if corrective actions were effective. II. The Drawing Control Cent'er (DCC) shall AI-25 I maintain an inder of configuration control Pt. I ' drawings currently on file in the DCC. For Pg. 4 each drawing, the following shall be Rev. 14-maintained on a card similar to Attachment A. A. Drawing Number B. As-Constructed Revision level C. Controlled copy distribution points to which the drawing muit be distributed and number of copies needed (if any). D. Distribu, tion Date E. Latest OE revision received III. Information on the Master inder cards is No Referenc s I accurate whea compared with drawings on flie and in distribution. IV. Access to the Master inder cards is controlled. I V. Compare Master indez card status with that I found in the Drawing Management System (DMS). 9 NOTE: (1) A= Acceptable; D= Deficient (2) NA=Not Applicable: NC=Not Chacknid

CHECKLIST REMARKS

.

• Survey Number:

Ic-86-s-oo3 Page 1 of 2 ~ I. No audit deficiencies were found. In addition, the following corrective action reports and discrepancy reports were reviewed to determine if

• previous corrective actions were effective: CARS 86-01-002, 86-01-004, 86-03-011 and DRs 86-03-061. 86-03-082 & 85-10-131. Pertinent information obtained from the above drawing-related problems was.

included in the checklist items. II. Drawing Control Cards (TVA 7004A-1),were reviewed for compliance to S AI-25. Part 1 Page 4. Rev. 15 and for adequacy and accuracy.of recorded information. A sample of drawing's were selected from the Control Room "as-constructed" drawing file. The drawings used in the verification wert:...- Drawing Number Rev No. As-Constructed 47W866-15 O A 47W866-8 21 3 47W867-1 15 0-P. Alpha updated during survey 47W845-3 15 I-J Alpha updated during survey 47W845-4 23 R 47W845-5 7 M 447W611-32-2 11 L 47W610'.14-3 6 D 45,N665-1 11 G 45N681 4 D The distribution card information and the drawings on file were in agreement. III. Information on the Mastor Inder Cards is accurate when compared with the. drawings on file and the distribution card information for the sample used in checklist item II. IV. Access to the Drawing Control Room is controlled. The Master Inder Cards are within view of the secretary assigned to control access of the work area. V. A. comparison of Nastor Inder Cards to the Drawing Management System was made. The comparison of drawings selected for Item II confirmed the accuracy of the Drawing Management System.

• ;o ? ;.

= CHECKLIST REMARKS ,e , Survey Number: Ic-86-s-oo3 Page of V. (Continued). .a..z. Due to reorganization, the Drawing Control Center (DCC) will no longer be responsible for drafting "as constructed" status to drawings. These responsibilities are in the process of being transferred to Design Nuclear Engineering (DNE). As prints are received by DCC that require "as constructed" changes, the drawing is transferred with the drawing print to DNE. At that time, the following drawing control systems are checked by DCC: Drawing Master Cards, DMS, and Drawing Control Cards. I.R.. addit _ ion to,th,e,.tr,ans, fee,.of,ae,t,iyegork,_deawin,gs,,wi11,'a(1.so. be,, transferred by system. As the drawing systems are transferred, they ~ also will initiate the review of the before-mentioned drawing controls. The teni.ative schedule for completing transfer is November 3, 1986. ~ m 4 4 g e .M w I t 4 ~ i t i j 1 ).C,' :5$

sc* ' h.ib' 3 =E oo N s. f "Q3 M* " E <

• wS < ' o.

c5n ? Qq % i%gDbw bTas(} @t* N &*gw$ 4 gun % % g\\p r e. hk kgN ~ Ig>'1 4Kk- %xNb, s) i i ('c 3 N E5 gwr.$ Ea* cQ m2 o$ ,E* E,* d"* 5gcS "sioR E<* M,- c* a

f z

+ l. i e ; .~ -, f - mE 5.,N" m,4 '. 2 d 3 _- ? e a 8 g. T,. m~j TPE e $ O2Mo" o$o / K C D T O A T Y R N P R D K E P R N T U R V E A N T A U D C O C 1 E E A S V C O A H 1 R N O T T - T A E D H O E R R D I O R N R N W L R P C L C E N G R G A C I D B L L P ? I O L N P T T N N I N A C A. A. L I U D E. F O A E O S S E L E E L } A E A A S F R W N O B B R B N W R S O O T R I C F T l C E S X R C W O T T S T I N C I C T l I B E B C C O l i S O E E I A A A A T T T T F F C C C N P P D H l E L N U B B B U B B E C S O D D C O O P E i A S C H f f' m. N h eI ,\\ n l 7

ATTACHMENT I ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracking Document (CATD) INITIATION 1. Immediate Corrective Action Required: /_/ Yes /_X/ No ~ 2. Stop Work Recommended: // Yes /X/ No 3. CATD No. 80503-SQN-02 4. INITIATION DATE 11/18/86 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: SON Site Director 6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: /X_/ QR /;/ NQR No lower-tier QA approved procedures or instructions are available at Chattanooga Document Control Center and Technical Information Center in Knoxville pertaining to Drawing Control. There is no QA Program that adequately implements Drawing Control at these Control Centers. f // ATTACHMENTS 7. PREPARED BY: NAME G. A. Collins Q M L/ L DATE: 11/18/86 8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H R. K. Maxon MK//t/ c/- DATE: _ ///2//P(,o 9. APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAM MGR: (l'vhaM -nCd DATE: t/-//WG CORRECTIVE ACTION 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN: N T dh 6" [ rfsC#6"b b/ b / / ATTACHMENTS 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR: / /, ##4,4. /A DATE: /- 7-O 12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-Il 8M(/:,~ DATE:.2/co/F7 SRP /' DATE: ECTG PROGRAM MGR DATE: VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily impicmented. SIGNATURE TITLE DATE

-[ L T CATD. h0. 80503-SQWC2 -(PART 1) s . A similar problem exists in esch DNE engiacee!.sg project. This situation has been identified and proposed corrective action documented in the i preliminary DNE Project Records Managenest and Document Conttol Report (a tta ched). s Some activity relato5 to 80503-SQWO2 and recommended in the report, has already begun, and DHE expects phased implementation of the BM/DC Pro' gram over the next several years with inmediate attention to the most critical / areas. ( Engineering Records & Information Systems (EAIS) / The new Kugineering Records & Information Systems (EP. d). Program Development Group is renpont.ible for writing or rewriting procedures and instructions to enoure controls are in place for DNE 4::cwings. ERIS is currently in the process of staffing this group. The lEDS 'dagineering Procedure 62.08 was a n$a -QA lower-tier drawing control procedu: e in place in the Knoxville TIC until the elisihation of all DitE division procedures approximately in June 1985 (copy attached). This procedure will be 1 g appropriately revised _(She 't.ttached ERIS-I-87-02 and 45D from C. L. O' Dell I f. to M. E. Anderson dated February 12, 1987), reviewed by DNE's EA, and put k;l l' in place by March 15, 1987. In a6)ition, ERIS has developed a Program f~ Control Group which will conduct program surveillances throughot.t DNE to } DE01;LJ7044.01 SQEP Feb. 13, 1987

• t

. / s

CATD. NO. 80503-SQN-02 (PART 1) Engineering Records & Information Systems (ERIS) (continued) identify deficiencies'and ensure they are corrected in a timely manner. The group is currently being staffed and functional documents prepared, Initial implementation should being April 1, 1987. The ERIS Program Development Group and the Program Control Group organizations have been approved and staffing is underway. i f t 0: h. i

f..

1l P }. b.. l l r DE01;LJ7044.01 SQEP Feb. 13, 1987 -__,._.-y-w r

o [b7 1 02/12/1987 09:19 UE/OAS Wii D193 C-K 615 632 2087 P.02 .~ 9 .L 1 %4esi [ M. E. Anderson un FEB 19,1997 anun [ DSC-F12 SQN } _... ______\\_"m C \\w. r [ p --t m,c, R Charles L. O' Dell O ^**"" 7580 M W5-C99 C-K pa, m m. t C C = m-I Ra'forence: smployee Concerns E_RIS will revise the crono_ sed ERIS-I 87-02 as follows: 1. A section will be added wh'ich defines the orocest f.or retrioping anet reffline aperture cards in the Knoxville Center including verification of the latest s revision in DMS. s. 2. A statement will be added which clarifies when th.jssued drawing has been ' d. Jt f; microfilmed and is ready for loading into the DMS system. F S 3. A section_will be_added wh(ch outlines the j process and receipt acknowledgerent by the _ ( .,_,Jites and_1ho Chattanoors DCC for new t. apertere, card lasues. n A N1 Nn i .n 4 b0 k l i

(

Charles L. O' Dell "{ - i. .. cLo dR j ~'1 ~

"~ T. -i A: AvM i . pp wl M , G 'A iLs, w ~ ff _ :,= /: VQ W-= \\] .\\ g,Sp3-.6a-lae6 ,e, .D 4 f" W t g) ON v v" Qr- *s." A \\ &5 o nw p.aw Q.j

1. '~~

'W EW"&[ A 4 V WL ,aa~e & aQ' n s'r-ng:->=' n.n m@w M "I g pE N t / l!c i I' e i it. 8 (1 } l., l' l a [~ t 1 s l'l 3 4l' ii k s I I 4h 1 e a c 1

B8:p '"'PROJ f1GMT/DSC--P W 615 870 7466 P. 04i u u

• w ww
• ~~

y s.l3 l

CJ0 dell January 29, 1987 l } DOCUMENT CONTROL AUD RECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH i, Dirsetives and standards List Start Reis. Title M f Febmary 9 DIR1.[ Document Control February 17 STD 1.[1, Document Control March 2 STD1.[2 Drawing Control March 2 STD1.[3 Disaster Recovery / Emergency Preparadness March 2 STD1.[4 Microfilming i-March 2 STD1[5 Document Control and Racceds Management Audits and Corrective Action Harch 2 Docu: cent Control and Recorde Hanngement BTD 1 or5anization and Responsibility 3 Harch 30 Document Control and Records Management STD 1. 7 Tr'ainin5 February 12 STD1.[8 Distribution Control March 30 STD1.[9 Information Management System February 9 DIR 1.8 Recorda Management j ) February 17 BTD1.f.1 Records Management 1 February 28 STD 1.h 2 Records Identification April 6 STD1.h.3 Document Control and Records Management } Procurement (( February 2 ETD1.h4 Quality Assurance Requirements y: March 2 STD 1.0.5 Vendor Manual Control February 28 STD1.[.6 Records Stora84 Facilities 1 i 2116y i A

. ?q Ts:-.3.Collln.s i \\ .K. I,. J.edbenfer. ..._.. l.. Ftcm : i.. Sub eck: . D#cck.'o e b. 5%ck< cl Agmac<.I ~ 5 ...;_.i.._.$ 's ,g.. ? Occ.amed GmkoI et $co,rJs $4amo9esmed ...h:tediae.s +. G%das]S vJill be. issvect aconky de Nucleo.c . _....:;6 ne. peUctes es b /c u sA.ccl 63 ... [.4...Ptoc:edo r e. Sytem Ca % L d) u%.m M ._..._..j! s ysb rz... /h p (c.ce,. . -.:(, G +:I. Se Nuclw e fioc:edute E s m t ..llls.. cu>au cdole, ( Dc e no) Dr eekve.s onc/ 5% clads Pm P goces.s (ntrach 8] .......koiil be tssaeci osM 9 .....s. .m.e.. t ?... *. .l e i-t- .I

• ~

g .n. li ~

I a

-l,

~' .{ wa LL r ! 'j i NUCLEAR PROCEDURE SYSTEM OVERVIEW Summary: The nuclear procedures system is described in the Office of Nuclear Power (ONP) Directive 4.4 Rev. O. The following provides an overview of the content, structure, and purposes of i procedure system: A. ONP Policy and Organization Manual (P&OM) 1. Protram Policy A document containing a statement establishing management programs that the Manager of Nuclear Power deems necessary to conduct ONP operations effectively. In addition the statement may include the Manager of Nuclear Power's position on the conduct, philosophy, and interpretation of specific topics associated with the management program. A separate ONP Directive is created to implement each of these documents. f 2. Position Policy A document containing a statement of Manager of Nuclear Power's position or philosophy on such things as conduct er interpretation of regulations or requirements for a specific topic. Separate ONP Directives are not required to i=plement these statements. 3. ONP Interoffice Agreements A document, signed by the Manager of Nuclear Power and the manager of the other TVA interfacing organization involved, formali2ing the agreements between OUP and that other TVA organization. This document defines the support responsibilities and establishes authorities of the involved organizations where they are not adequately addressed in the TVA Code and General i Releases. L 4. OUP Organization Descriptions I'[ a. OrRanization Description i. j A brief description of the major functions down to the branch h level or equivalent of each ONP Staff and Division, including a unique interfaces within CNP, with other TVA organizations, f and with organizations external to TVA. p u b. Standing Boards and Committees 1 1 Poemanent groupc with a defined purpose and membership. They are established by the Manager of tfuclear Power either { pursuant to regulation, license, or permit, or to serve a t I specific function over an extended period of time. L

m0E2 l f 5. QNP Position Description L An document tha.t establishes the principal duties, responsibilities, and accountabilities of a specific ONP position. 6. ONP OrRanization charts A p,ictorial illustration of the structure (chain of command) of ONP organizational compononta under the Manager of Nuclear Power, a division director, staf f manager, project manager, or a site director. B. Nuclear Quality Assuranco Manual (NQAM) and the Nuclear Components Manual (NCM)-American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 1. NOAM NQAM reflects uppertier requirements of the TVA topical and limited Quality Assurance (QA) program. I ( 2. NcM The NCM contains specific requirements for CNP activities conducted in accordance with ASME Code, Section III Division 1. b C. ONP Directives (Manual) f A Nuclear Procedure System document, which is based upon an DNP program Policy. Directives expands on the policy's statement of what I is to be done and describes overall structure and content of the program governed by the Directive and identifies those lowertier Nuclear Procqdures System documents required to implement it. D. CNP Implementing Directives (Directives Manual) Each program directive will have an implementing directive which sets { 'for,th the priorities or sequence for development of the program's standards. It identifies the transition process and how existing or new procedures and instructions are brought under the control of and compliance to the nuclear procedures system. The transition process j is intended to maintain the integrity of the procedure system and L minimize impact on operations. The implementing directive also S I requires identification of required training. l E. ONP Standards (Manual) 4 t 1. Baris A document that describes the ccope, precedcc a standard, and j justifies the need for a new ONP Standard. This document in not issued nor included in the manual. i 'r, b I l l s a

WTo d - 2. Standards Implement requirements of policies and directives and specifies how activities that involve interfaces between CNP sites, nuclear projects, divisions or,staf fs or are performed at more than one L ONP site, nuclear project, division or staff and are int be performed in a standardized manner. ' Standards are issued in ended to the ONP standard format or in standard formats for direct implemention at a site (s). F Division Prucedur,es (Manual) Implements requirements of directives and standards that involve interf aces between two or more of that division's major organizations e.g., branches and/or where an ONP standard cannot be implemented directly within the division. G. Branch Instruction (Manual) Branch Instructions and staff Instructions implement the requirements of CNP Directives, Standards, and Divi = ion Procedures where standards or division procedures cannot be implemented directly. [ Site Director's/ Nuclear Project Procedures (Manual) H. Implements the applicable requirements of directives and standards. Implements site / project specific management or regulatory requirements when an interface exists on site with offsita organizations or within the site organization. I. Site Instructions s Sits Instructions implement the requiraments of OUP Directives, ONP Sttndards, and Site Director's Procedures (when applic'able) and the site-unique regulatory requirement: operations. that control the conduct of plant 1 I Th3 hierarchy for these documents are shown in attachment A. Procedure Process Flow charts for formally procesJing the upportier procedures are shown'in attachment B 1-3. The informal process that proceeds the formal processes (sending to the Directive Standards Review Committee) is shown in uttachment C. [ An Overview Process Chart showins initiation and approvals of these procedures are shown in j attachmont D. ONP standards that detail the process are: i l' 3 4.4.1 Administration of Policy and Organization Manuni 4.4.2 OUP Forms control 1 g3 4.4.3 Administration of ONP Directives k 4.4.4 Administration of CNP Standards i 4.4.5 Administration of Divisicn Procedures and Branch /0taff Instructions i 1, .A. e b --,,,-w ~

---

e-w, e

m-4 --:-,,------ g. ---e. -,m- ---,.,,-,mw,, nr

e,. tu/ob/u; MOdd t 4.4.6 Administration of Site Director Procedures 4.4.7 Administration of Site Instructicns 4.4.8 . Administration of Nuclear Project Procedures 4.4.9 Nuclear Procedur,es System Writer's Guidance 4.4.10 Researching Nuclear Procedures System Requirement? 4,4.11-Implamentation of_ Nuclear Procedurat { 4.4.12 System Documents Incorporating Existing Proceduras D'acuments in the s Nuclear Procedure Systams 4.4.13 Periodic Reviews of the Hucisar Procedures System Program ) 4.4.14 Administration of the Integrated Nuclear Program System I (INPS) l 1980y 4 h s i l ) ( h s i 1 E 1 a i ? i l ~. k

= monn ADVAi"CE CO3Y ' g. Nuclear Precadures Systa:: L CNP DIRECO'IE 4.4 Kev. C-t (sinots/to &sn '/s/i. Page 33 of 40 ~ Apper.:!i:t A, Sheet 1 of 1 NUCLIAS,PRCC20VRES SYS-dy. MIIRARCMY AE11A? CRY M~~.*;iC2Mt3

• ' L &lti sf ( sh"s o' V154 ( e'.? c t.*1LA r0b w

cg ag5 Qp.x,:,gl ~ a'r,o na w5'It t A *'W *'* M ~S gut:Oc -- Pns rica prsc.s og s / out ( acuturais - C'A.jsWl%.27's?u M'W.S oft /~s J+23 Y l ~ O'Efr*A*J %.bl*/5At C /s.4 1 Y $ ~ S t'ANusub-Ber,s as sua u ,-..,.v.< 4 s Y s NCAM + !!N." :.:l::!* S8?t NCt TCR tWr:"JZ ASMC !!!I REIL'IM.*4W3 "J.5. I-[ 'f '~ Y t gyp g y...ygg i @*wn r>~ s ) 2. sue is n En:o3 \\ 4 Y 1?ACAR:3 l manuat.

• a t..

.F!AC.T L.CY.C. C.00 *T. _ft.3 y v v t j M $jQ$ 4 M h@.rJAAM N MME ' d y;::,t;A pg::.:c CTl;3 ::N3 STA#Ft 1 l 'g r II*E CIRC.**0R$'/ O!Y!!!*'4 N'*.* I.UI FROJZ"" PRO P JEI3 I '90~.::::*.AES MNUA1.3 MAUAL3 I h e t 5A. i' 3: t S*4.AN:A STAFF ggg 3..=;t:33 th37M7:04 (N!!P'wClO4 I na,,M2

• • ^L3

? MNUALS . b e S

9,04

.'.da ': e,-

woe:J at. v.sc.*.ntu e e-; Flow Chert - Policy and Organization MatuS1 Prepare & teview Policy Prepare laterotrice, Agree. Sectica 2.2 Seatten 2.s 1 1 laserverette s Sa CNP P4CM levtev Manual lateroffise Secties 2.3 Agreement Sectaea 2.9 i laylosentaties pre.e.o. et Policies APyreve Sectica 2.4 later. Agree. Seatten 2.10/2.3 1 30 PD 4 OC TES !spleneat Reed Interoffice Change? Agressent-Seattet 2.11 1.- 1 - r i I End TIS PD and OC 30 j. y Need Change? f .* }

Prepare, Review. a w

Approve PD 4 Org. Chart Ea4 Sectica 2.8 I 3 i IQ UD 5eed 123 ChangesT l F 4-Prepare sat aavsev C3 h Seatian 2.6 . g i g t: g 5-g. 3 K 3 c; 1 !aevryersties 1m PM Panal j-Section 2.3 l t l !splementaties \\ 4 j of PDs. Cr. s' i Charte. 4 De j 4 Section 2.7 .L ,,(___ n I. End

- v a.: Attachment B-2 1 1 Flow Chart - Rev 6 and Accrov=1 e,f Directives + e Initiate Jatstate laittate Otracttvo Revteten Caseellattles Settaen 2.2 8estsen 2.7' 8estaea 2.9 I Prepare Prepare Directave 03 rest &ve Revsaaen Seatsen 2.2 Sectica 2.8 I Review Darsstive Seatten 2.4 f. O e I* Approve Directive Sectica 2.'$ e g Final n. Preseassag and Distrinatica sectses 3.6 i End a f 4T L. p. k-fi. L.a. g': .e W '. S w g O

.., a a Attachment B-3 Flow Chart '49 view.snd Accrova l.cf DirecWs-

i......

.c..... ....... n...... .. a.: ..... 2.. .~ u. sm... e......

s...

s.a. m a. ,an a.

w...

i......,. .....1 u,. .. (. 3.t2.2. 3.u... m. 2.4 .. 2.a ~ e

i...,, m 8.e a.4 4

8.a..c...e.. w s.m 8.as..a . 3.4 3.sn.3 es. 4 3.64.4 as a e g 8.s....

8. A..,...

A..... .,.e... 3.11..e1.che.s t?S r 5.H 8 e.t. 3.0 c.. 1.12... t 44 7 l I L 48 e.1...!P.. F. g. $.1s.,s... 81.. 1.... l.., 4....... Ches.e.1iE i Es..... 3.7 S he..g 3.4 3.is... -5 .is.a k te 713 t- .t.o...

s....

T13 .f...... a-If h..E.7 p. g. -1. a i ~ b a I si.i.s.t.ilts 0.. i.s... $43341.f.fl gag ch..

3..

se...

3. 51= &.

L i e e e 9 8 .s I e W, e wt

....e u. MOdd Attachment C

• DIVISION OF NUCLEAR SERVICES (DNS)

DIRECTIVE AND STANDARDS REVIEW PROCESS Directives and Standards are prepared and approved in accordance with t office of Nuclear Power (CNP) Standards such an ONP STDs . e Before this formal process, there are some options that should be consid ered. 1. Review by peer technical contacts outside of DNS. 2. Review by peer DNS organization managers. 3. Review by DNS division director. Peer reviews 1 and 2 above should be ccepleted before review by the divi i director. s on 1 f The peer reviews (and division director) should be conducted and th comments (and division director) incorporated in the Directives and Stand e paar before entering into the " formal" systems as outlined in the OHP STDs 4 4 ards and 4.4.4. Enter into the " formal" review system by providing the formal draf t t ~ odell, extension 3609 at BR 6N 52A-C who will focmally transmit to: o George' 1. ONP directors 'and managers the draf t directives by preparing memo fro C. C. Robertson. m 2. To the Directive Standards Review Committee (DERC) for standards the hesig documents 3. memo from C. C. Robert:onTo the affected directors and managers the dr ng 1967y TF N n o m R C' j \\ e

e DUCl.lEAlt 21rtAEinisE CVSit2t DOCUMENT PROCESS /Arrhosat. mamT e d, - d, Procedure Spenser's impactode \\ WPS OtrP Seemmer Ort _anngellen Orteettetten DSSC ltenster Manetel e.a.. L ? _ A. 1 Polley (Pasillon) OUP Manager ONP 10amager se se se Yes A. 2 Policy (Program) Program organtration Appropriate dislolon designated by 011P etractor, site director, se as de Yes menager or staff manager A. 3 titerofflee Agreements As delegated by OhP Delegated ergenitetten manager Yes directors er senagers We Yes Yes A. 4 Ortenlaallevi as delegated by division Division director Wescriptions directers site (1xcluding stondlag directors,, site managers director, or stafI elle Persessoal staf f so Yes Yes managers (Escept for Standing Sereds & Cervaittees) Boards & Committees) A. 5 PDsition As de' legated tiy dielelan t plvision directore Dese r t pt ions directors, site directors directors, or stofd olie rarsonnel staff No Yes Yes or staff managers managers A. 6 Organtration Ct. arts As delegated by divlelen Olsiston directors, site Personnel staf f directors, site directors directors, er staf f No Yes Yes or staff managere managers { 0. IrQAft/NCM DNQ4 DNQA director See remarks No No-Yes All lopected managers are requested to eomment - no formeI C./D. Direettwes approval Progree ergentratten Division director elle Yes .(Includleg designated by Orte 4 tractor, er stall Yes Yes Yes 12plementang) manager manager t. OC'P Standards As delegated by olvislon directors and staff Dielsten directors and Yes staff e.enegor2 Yes Yes go managers '. Bivision Preced. ares 4s delegated ty division Olvistori ofrectors ama only irithln divisten irectors and' staff d staff managers no see eso annagers . Cranch Instavetions Branch Chief arsach Chlaf only arithin brancle no een eso plwisten directors r staf f managers o ay asent to appreira m branch instrisettens slac/ Project As delegated by site i Site director Prmcedures directors only at site Me to tre $l40 Instrucktons as delegated by site Site directec directors Only at site me yo se ~3 F sr alt es# slew sad comment only - opproval at Deir manager's discretionpreceduces i sM rsoes or other orgentrattoo documents)~FeMTe'r 1ecore requirements aKPs utal provide support services and rewleus for heedquarters origi at d cir n e procedures slalter to alta procedure staff for site organitetteeis 1 b i t k .g -; . t.

• p O W'?? fy r:7.***,

I _}}